Re: Handling multiple rdfs:ranges

Hi Peter and Simon,

Your ISWC'14 paper is the kind of systematic approach I'm looking for. I
notice that the paper focusses on properties other than
schema:rangeIncludes, but you mentioned in this thready that you had
considered this property. Are your proposed semantics in the public domain,
or should I just be patient and hold on for an extended version of the
paper?

Simon's view is close to my intuition, if I understood correctly. There is
no closed world; instead, every consumer on the Web of Data has their own
current view of schema information they have explored so far (as
represented by Simon's anonymous owl:unionOf for example). When new schema
information is discovered the current view is refined (in a monotonic way).
This is a quite type theoretic perspective on ontologies, where the
"current view" is basically a "type environment".

Excuse me for not being up-to-date with the lingo: is "SDO sponsors
validators" a technical term?

Kind regards,

Ross



On 24 February 2016 at 06:00, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, this is one way to think of schema.org ranges.  I have asked whether
> something like this was this case, and didn't get any response.
>
> Other meanings for schema.org ranges might be more likely.  For example,
> one
> might consider schema.org ranges to be constraining, i.e., that a property
> s:p1 with definition
>   s:p1 s:rangeIncludes s:cr .
> (and no other s:rangeIncludes triples) constrains valid inputs to have type
> triples to s:cr or one of its subclasses for every node that is the value
> of s:cr.
>
> Which is right?  At one time I was hoping that I could get a public answer,
> but it was not to be.
>
>
> It is definitely not the case that one can just think of schema.org
> "triples"
> as OWL axioms and facts.   The treatment of domains and ranges in
> schema.org
> mean that this simple transformation doesn't work.  Even doing some sort of
> closure also doesn't work, because of strings as things.
>
> peter
>
>
> On 02/23/2016 01:22 PM, Simon Spero wrote:
> > The interpretation of rangeIncludes etc., becomes easier if one
> hand-waves in
> > a simple temporal context .
> >
> > A canonical reference oracle (iming danbri) accepted the assertion that
> the
> > set of rangeIncludes axioms could be considered closed for a given
> version of
> > schema.org <http://schema.org>.
> >
> > The included ranges form an anonymous unionOf; the effective range is the
> > conjunction of this anonymous range with all other range assertions
> applicable
> > to property, whether through assertions or by inheritance.
> >
> > Inferences from assertions in a document using schema.org <
> http://schema.org>
> > semantics should be made with respect to the version of the schema that
> > existed at the time the assertions were made.
> > This behavior roughly corresponds to the behavior of the various sdo
> sponsors
> > validators.
> >
> > This assumption allowed for relatively simple mapping to OWL (literal
> types
> > were just converted to classes, with magic boxing/unboxing).
> >
> > Generating named classes for the anonymous unions and computing the class
> > hierarchy revealed a good bit of hidden structure, and also uncovered
> > anomalies caused by errors.
> >
> > One interesting idiom that initially made no sense until it is explained
> is
> > the use of ranges that are (Text or URL), where URL is a subclass of
> Text.
> > This generally indicates an identifier of some kind, where the URL is in
> > principle pointing to a named individual.
> >
> > What makes this interesting is that there is no ready way in OWL to
> restrict
> > the range of an object property to be a named individual, since that
> > distinction is purely syntactic. It's easy enough to sort of handle this
> > poorly (checking for unacceptable anonymous individuals in input,
> generating
> > different individual assertions, and discarding inferred anons in
> post).  It's
> > difficult to handle this cleanly without bringing up a whole raft of UNA
> > issues (and CWA issues if cardinality constraints are around).
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > On Feb 23, 2016 2:53 PM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <
> pfpschneider@gmail.com
> > <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     On 02/23/2016 09:12 AM, Reto Gmür wrote:
> >     >
> >     [...]
> >     >> Without any official formal semantics for schema.org
> >     <http://schema.org> or other guidance
> >     >> from
> >     >> the schema.org <http://schema.org> people we are reduced to
> considering
> >     the meaning of
> >     >> English
> >     >> phrases on the schema.org <http://schema.org> website.
> >     >
> >     > Could it be triples all the way down? Doesn't the justification
> chain
> >     > typically ends at some definitions in natural language?
> >
> >     Well, maybe.  There is some stuff that has been machine-validated.
> (Which
> >     then makes the basis some computer code, I guess.)
> >
> >     One big reason for formal semantics is to ground on something that
> is quite
> >     precise.  Grounding on simple model theories is useful, I think,
> because there
> >     is very little wiggle room left in the definitions and
> constructions, even
> >     though there is, as you say, still a natural language component that
> has to be
> >     considered even if the natural language is some language that
> mathematicians
> >     use to communicate with each other.
> >
> >     >> Worse, the phrases used there are generally quite informal.
> >     >
> >     > This makes it difficult indeed.
> >     >
> >     > Reto
> >
> >     peter
> >
> >
>
>