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 11:53:52 -0600
Message-ID: <CACvcBVpqQFLLGaEw3nz-CG_1OOOCLb2YaeVx_C9UMEwER0=fmg@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>
Rules can be put into the file to infer new facts. There are inference
engines and reasoning engines. I'm not sure what the difference is,
but I think this link to swap might be getting close?
-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 11:50 AM, Brent Shambaugh
<brent.shambaugh@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 18:04:29 UTC

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