W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > February 2017

Re: Which semantics?

From: HansTeijgeler <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 11:38:17 +0100
To: Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com>
Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, public-rww <public-rww@w3.org>, pragmaticweb@lists.spline.inf.fu-berlin.de
Message-ID: <f4dd1599-046e-6af9-44b3-06123a3262d7@quicknet.nl>
Hi Sebastian,

Martynas describes what we are doing.

We

 1. defined a generic conceptual data model
    <http://15926.org/topics/data-model/index.htm> of 201 entity data types;
 2. created a reference data library <http://data.15926.org/rdl/> with
    15000 standard core classes, where required with local extensions
    thereof (e.g. supplier catalogs, standards bodies);
 3. created 180 generic templates
    <http://15926.org/15926_template_specs.php>, using entity types from
    that data model, to express small chunks of information;
 4. declare all OOIs (Objects Of Interest) by typing them with an entity
    type of the data model and a reference class from the library;
 5. map data from the proprietary format of the various
    applications/databases to specialized templates, defining those
    specialized templates with the applicable reference data;
 6. store these declared OOIs and template instances in one or more RDF
    triple stores or quad stores that can be federated for SPARQL queries;
 7. time stamp all declared OOIs and all template instances with the
    effective date-time and, if no longer valid, with the deprecation
    date-time.

Doing this the lifecycle information of a process plant, from comceptual 
design to operations and maintenance, can be integrated.
Since the data model is generic, with a proper reference data set the 
above can be used for anything else, e.g. airplane, ship, car fleet, 
organization, and natural objects.

The source of this information is in the applications and systems that 
are used throughout the lifetime of the facility. These need an 
import/export adapter.
Note, however, that this integration can only be done in case the 
information is made as explicit as possible (and affordable), without 
shortcuts that leave out OOIs that are involved in other information.

Read more at http://15926.org

Use of the data model, reference data and template specifications is 
free under GNU license.

Regards,
Hans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 14-2-2017 20:20, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
> Sebastian,
>
> I think it is useful to think about the merge operation between datasets.
>
> Here I mean a "physical" merge, where records with the same
> identifiers become augmented with more data, when multiple datasets
> are merged together. A "logical", or "semantic" merge, with vocabulary
> mappings etc., comes on top of that.
>
> So if you take the relational or XML models, there is no generic way
> to do that. With RDF, there is: you simply concatenate the datasets,
> because they have a stable structure (triples) and built-in global
> identifiers (URIs).
>
> That said, you should try approaching things from another end: start
> building a small but concrete solution and solve problems one by one,
> instead of overthinking/reinventing the top-down architecture. Until
> you do that, you will probably not get relevant advice on these
> mailing lists.
>
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sorry for me being so ignorant. But what could be called 'semantic' (in the
>> sense of 'meaning', I suppose) for the current frameworks, at least the
>> couple I know, available for ontologies of some kind if they could assert
>> between their instances which statements and resources are equivalent (being
>> them in a different language/encoding or different 'contextual' terms for
>> the same subjects for example).
>>
>> Another important lack of 'semantics' is ordering (temporal or whatsoever)
>> where a statement or resource should be treated at least in relation to
>> their previous or following elements.
>>
>> If my last posts where so blurry is because I try to address some of this
>> issues, besides others, trying no to fall in the promise that adhering to
>> one format will free us all of any interoperability hassles. Remember a
>> similar promise from XML: "All we have to do is share DTDs and
>> interoperate". I'll still trying to give the format a twist (RDF Quads) but
>> I'll publish a Google Document open for comments.
>>
>> Best,
>> Sebastián.
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2017 10:39:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:41:54 UTC