Re: Which semantics?

First, thanks everybody for your interest in helping me. I'll be reviewing
each comment and links. The question is, I'm a SW beginner but maybe I was
not expressing me correctly.

I'm not trying to do 'canonical' Semantic Web, Linked Data not even RDF. I
just take RDF quads as a simple serialization mechanism and try to build
upon that what a 'relational model' could be for a traditional database.

For this I encode lots of metadata regarding the original input 'RDF' (this
is because any data source data I'll use can be encoded as RDF) and arrange
metamodels which aggregate and infer knowledge about original data.

I try to merge and align equivalent resources and statements, perform
resource relationships retrieval and comparation and finally I try to sort
resources and statements logically and temporally.

For this I aggregate statement resources into levels and classify those
resources using my own kind of type inference.

Templates is a concept I use for 'a graph of resources, statements, with
types, variables and wildcards also as resources. A Template applied to
another resource (Template) may shield another graph.

Over Templates I build a 'protocol'. Each request/response is a Template
(graph) and dialog finishes when each part 'completes' or resolves its
corresponding types, variables and wildcards.

Having a 'protocol' each metamodel layer narrows itself into Facades,
another (sub) graph of each level regarding level's kind of constructions
(facts, objects, purposes: anOrder, orders, order management).

All the 'constructions' I've made are not (and not even pretends to be)
Semantic Web or RDF standards based. If you read the document please bear
this in mind.

There I've just laid down spare propositions of 'parts' of this 'relational
model' encoded in metadata which, in turn, encodes the layers of models
using just three classes.

It's funny that I've used RDF as a kind of universal input translation
mechanism and that it inspired the contexts, kinds and metamodel
abstractions somehow. Mostly when I recall almost everyone on these lists
telling me I'm wrong, perhaps because I didn't warn them this is something
else, not just RDF.

So, before being misunderstood, I'll share this link which is not a paper,
specification, documentation, draft or even complete at all. It is just a
TOC, a raw placeholder where the blanks could be filled and corrections be
made.

Available for comments at:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VrvIV4rXyUyGl5jvDAgsEV4G
RxX_NvMICgkdnbvj9DQ/edit?usp=drivesdk

The document just does enumerate concepts, some mentioned above. It starts
describing the resource data/meta models. It is just titles and a brief
explanation. Sorry for posting a so very early 'draft' (dump) but I'm not
willing to publish a document but to build a set of 'patterns' for
modelling and looking for 'constructive' feedback.

I'll attach a previous document as a reference for things I mention in the
Google doc and that perhaps are not so well defined. The Google doc, once
finished, will reflect more coherently all concepts regarding the proposal.

Thanks,
Sebastián.


On Feb 15, 2017 9:21 PM, "Brent Shambaugh" <brent.shambaugh@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wikipedia:
>
> "A semantic reasoner, reasoning engine, rules engine, or simply a
> reasoner, is a piece of software able to infer logical consequences from a
> set of asserted facts or axioms. The notion of a semantic reasoner
> generalizes that of an inference engine, by providing a richer set of
> mechanisms to work with. The inference rules are commonly specified by
> means of an ontology language, and often a description logic language"
>
> CWM, which is part of SWAP mentioned earlier, uses a forward chaining
> reasoner where someone specifies rules and then uses the --think or --rules
> option when running with cwm. (refer to cwm --help).
>
> The link I provided earlier to swap, https://www.w3.org/2000/10/
> swap/doc/Processing is a bit dated. If you'd like the latest stuff, go to
> https://github.com/linkeddata/swap .
>
> In a broader perspective, here is a list of resources compiled for the
> semantic web domain :
>
> Indiana.edu Semantic  Course:
>
> http://info.slis.indiana.edu/~dingying/Z636Fall2014.html
>
> University of Edinbergh Semantic Web Systems book
>
> https://www.inf.ed.ac.uk/teaching/courses/sws/
>
> University of Georgia Semantic Web Course
>
> http://lsdis.cs.uga.edu/SemWebCourse_files/SemWebCourse.htm
>
> FAU Semantic Web Course
>
> http://semanticweb.fau.edu/
>
> Lehigh University Semantic Web Course
>
> http://www.cse.lehigh.edu/~heflin/courses/sw-2013/
>
> UNB Semantic Web Techniques Course
>
> https://www.cs.unb.ca/~boley/cs6795swt/syllabus.html
>
> Université Jean-Monnet Semantic Web Course
>
> http://www.emse.fr/~zimmermann/Teaching/SemWeb/
>
> Linked Data Tools.com Semantic Web Basics
>
> http://www.linkeddatatools.com/semantic-web-basics
>
> University of Mannheim Semantic Web Technologies Course
>
> http://dws.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/en/teaching/courses-
> for-master-candidates/cs660semanticwebtechnologies/
>
> Finland Semantic Web and Ontology Engineering Course
>
> http://www.cs.jyu.fi/ai/vagan/itks544.html
>
> TDT-44 Semantic Web Course
>
> https://www.ntnu.no/wiki/display/idiemner/TDT-44+Semantic+Web
>
> University of Rome -Knowledge Representation and Semantic Technologies
>
> http://www.dis.uniroma1.it/~rosati/krst/
>
> University of Koblenz Semantic Web Course
>
> https://west.uni-koblenz.de/en/studium/lehrveranstaltungen/
> ss14/semantic-web/semantic-web
>
> Euclid Project
> http://euclid-project.eu/
> Dr. Harald Sack, Linked Data Engineering - OpenHPI
> https://open.hpi.de/courses/semanticweb2016
> Linked Data Book - Tom Heath, Christian Bizer
> http://linkeddatabook.com/editions/1.0/
> What is Linked Data? - Manu Sporny
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x_xzT5eF5Q&t=108s
>
>
> -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 11:53 AM, Brent Shambaugh <
> brent.shambaugh@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>> >> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>