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

Re: Which semantics?

From: Brent Shambaugh <brent.shambaugh@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 11:50:27 -0600
Message-ID: <CACvcBVr0ARQr8Pcje8iW9CC36Ei3k+Pv+AYuL=pB8-TCys3fGQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
Cc: Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com>, pragmaticweb@lists.spline.inf.fu-berlin.de, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, public-rww <public-rww@w3.org>
Perhaps this is useful? I was looking a reasoning the other day:

https://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/Processing

-Brent Shambaugh

GitHub: https://github.com/bshambaugh
Website: http://bshambaugh.org/
LinkedIN: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brent-shambaugh-9b91259
Skype: brent.shambaugh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Brent_Shambaugh

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
wrote:

> Sebastian,
>
> nothing is inferred magically. However if you add explicit rules to
> your domain model, you can get both equivalence and ordering.
>
> Have you looked at the RDF, RDFS, OWL, SPARQL specifications? Here are
> some pointers:
> https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-primer/#Equality_and_Inequality_of_Individuals
> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_collectionvocab
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com>
> 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>
> > 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 17:51:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:50:25 UTC