- From: Bob Ferris <zazi@elbklang.net>
- Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 15:08:33 +0200
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
Hi everybody, I tried to model the knowledge representation with help of quintuples (quads + named graphs). I introduced therefore also a statement ID similar to the proposal from [4]. However, I don't want to use this only internally. That's why the statement ID should also be an URI. Please have a look at the result [5] ;) I applied the reification statement approach as description for the cognitive characteristic and for the related weight. Furthermore, I sketched some provenance information, i.e. for the scale description, named graph description and default graph description. What do you think about this modelling? I probably noticed a disadvantage of the Triplesets approach: the provenance information, e.g. an update date, is modelled with help of a concept, which may cause some overhead, because especially an update date can be simply modelled by one triple/quad, or? more notes inline Am 24.09.2010 15:34, schrieb Bob Ferris: > Hi everybody, > > Am 24.09.2010 14:11, schrieb Nathan: >> Toby Inkster wrote: >>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 01:12:45 +0200 >>> Bob Ferris <zazi@elbklang.net> wrote: >>> >>>> However, if I have for example three "shortcut relations" (e.g. a >>>> skill, an expertise and and interest) in a graph, which have all the >>>> same topic, I can't match them to the related cognitive >>>> characteristic statement (as you can also see in the original >>>> example[1]). >>> >>> What's wrong with this? >>> >>> ex:APerson >>> cco:skill <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Football_(soccer)> . >>> >>> ex:CC1 >>> a cco:CognitiveCharacteristic ; >>> cco:agent ex:APerson ; #added this >>> cco:characteristic cco:skill ; #added this >>> cco:topic <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Football_(soccer)>; >>> wo:weight [ >>> a wo:Weight ; >>> wo:weight_value 6.0 ; >>> wo:scale ex:AScale >>> ]; >>> cco:activity >>> <http://sw.opencyc.org/concept/Mx4rwJRiEpwpEbGdrcN5Y29ycA> . >>> >>> The following N3 rule would allow you to infer the shortcut property >>> from the longer form: >>> >>> { >>> ?cc >>> cco:agent ?s ; >>> cco:characteristic ?p ; >>> cco:topic ?o . >>> } >>> => { ?s ?p ?o . } . >> >> nice, +1 for Toby's approach from me, and likewise using n3 for all >> you're named graph needs. > > Yes, I proposed this idea before also on the FOAF dev mailing list (see > [1]): > > "- introduce a further property with a domain of > cco:CognitiveCharacteristic, which directs to the applied cognitive > characteristic, e.g. ex:CC1 cco:applied_cognitive_characteristic cco:skill > -> then we might somehow fall back to the "standard" > reification approach (subject relation -> cco:agent/cco:habit; > predicate relation -> cco:applied_cognitive_characteristic; > object relation -> cco:topic)" > > However, it might have the mentioned drawbacks ;) > > With the quad based approach, one would "bind" the reification statement > directly to its "shortcut relation". > Furthermore, what would happen, if you like to describe a cognitive > pattern of the same category, e.g. a skill, and with the same topic, > e.g. soccer, which should be related with two activities, e.g. goal > scoring and goal keeping* (which should have different weightings etc.). > Then you will need two cognitive characteristics descriptions, which are > "bound" to their related "shortcut relations", or? I would agree with your approach, Toby, to apply a rule for the mapping between "shortcut relations" and their descriptions. Although they are not in an one-to-one relation, the modelling might fit its purpose: - I can get all related cognitive characteristic descriptions of a cognitive characteristic "shortcut relation" (one-to-many) - I can summarize cognitive characteristic descriptions of a specific cognitive pattern and with the same topic to one "shortcut relation" (many-to-one) So I think applying a rule here might be enough ;) > > I'm getting more and more the opinion that we need a separation between: > - 'internal context', which should represent "semantically related > information" to the triple (here identified as reification statement) > - 'external context', which represent "semantically unrelated > information" to the triple (here identified by the Named Graph > entailment and the description of the Named Graph) > as it was a result of Tolle's research (see "Understanding Data by their > Context Using RDF"[2] for example, or [3], because the design of > Triplesets was also inspired by this "separation"). > > Furthermore, the same idea was probably similar applied by the approach > of the metaK framework (see "Querying for Provenance, Trust, Uncertainty > and other Meta Knowledge in RDF"[4]), where they called the 'external > context' 'meta knowledge' and introduce a separation between knowledge > and meta knowledge (with separate interpretation of meta knowledge > properties etc.). I really like the proposal, which is described in [4], > because they are delivering a good explanation of their intended > semantics and how they would integrated their approach in the existing > Semantic Web framework. > Although, this proposal might have some drawbacks in scaling to a Linked > Data scenario, because one have to define the intended meta knowledge > properties (that mark them somehow) and their corresponding > interpretation functions for query processing (this is currently done > via their Java framework). Maybe a Semantic Graph based description > might be good, so that other information consumer can also use this > knowledge for query processing. > However, what would happen, if one have to mix different meta knowledge > property definitions via a semantic federation framework, e.g. in one > source a property is assigned as meta knowledge property and in another > one not, or the interpretation functions of a meta knowledge property > are different. > Furthermore, can't there also be a fall-back into a ranked result > recommendation, if the filtering and/or ranking conditions of a query > wouldn't be fully fulfilled and the exact search result would hence be > empty? For instance, they drew an example that a more recent source > would outperform an older, but what will happen if the newer one has a > lower certainty? > > Cheers, > > > Bob > > > *it might not be the best example, but hopefully good enough for > explanation ;) > > > [1] > http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-dev/2010-September/010422.html > [2] > http://www.dbis.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de/~tolle/Publications/2004/AISTA04.pdf > > [3] http://www.ontotext.com/ordi/ORDI_SG/ORDI_SG_Specification.pdf > [4] > http://www.uni-koblenz.de/~staab/Research/Publications/2009/jws-meta-knowledge.pdf Cheers, Bob [5] http://smiy.sourceforge.net/cco/examples/N3/cco_-_football_example.qng
Received on Saturday, 25 September 2010 13:09:38 UTC