Re: Which semantics?

Don't mix up things like "inference" with "entity linking"


On 15.02.2017 12:43, Sebastian Samaruga wrote:
> OK. But sorry again for my lack of knowledge but does this mean that
> 'semantic' inference of the kind of 'inferring' that:
>
> http://somedomain.net/people/John
> (is the same as)
> http://anotherdomain.com/staff/Juan
>
> is not possible without resorting in previous knowledge or
> dictionaries or, even worst, NLP over those URIs? Not even to mention
> 'inferring' identity between 'The capital of France' and 'Paris' or
> 100cm / 1meter.
>
> Another kind of inference that simply concatenating datasets just not
> solve is that of 'ordering':
>
> Joe takes his car out.
> Joe washes his car.
> Joe takes his car in.
>
> How if the statements comes in any order one could reason about the
> correct sequence. This will be indispensable for propositional like
> logic and inference.
>
> Best,
> Sebastián.
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 14, 2017 4:20 PM, "Martynas Jusevičius" <martynas@graphity.org
> <mailto:martynas@graphity.org>> 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 <mailto: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.
>     >
>