Re: Scientific Models and Semantics

Dear Adam, all,

I guess its not 100% related, but we are currently working on
representing scientific contributions in a knowledge graph. The current
beta version of the Open Research Knowledge Graph you can find there:
https://orkg.org

We aim to create structured comparisons of research approaches, such as
e.g. this one for semi-supervised author name disambiguation:

https://www.orkg.org/orkg/comparison/R6187

Regarding your example, we envision, that different scientific models
will then consist of different entities, i.e. there are different
resources referring to the different conceptual models of an electron.

We are currently looking to create more examples from non-CS domains -
please let us know if you have any ideas in this regard!

Best,

Sören

On 10.02.2020 05:59, Adam Sobieski wrote:
> Semantic Web Interest Group,
> 
>  
> 
> I would like to broach, for discussion, scientific models and semantics,
> semantics in multi-model scenarios.
> 
>  
> 
> There exist multiple models of atoms: the Dalton model, the Thomson
> model, the Lewis model, the Nagaoka model, the Rutherford model, the
> Bohr model, the Bohr–Sommerfeld model, the Gryziñski model, the
> Schrodinger model, and the Dirac-Gordon model.
> 
>  
> 
> It seems that scientific models can contain components which are
> symbols. It seems that language symbols, e.g. “electron” can be related
> to these model component symbols. It seems that these model component
> symbols can be related to abstract concepts, e.g. /the electron/.
> Perhaps, while the aforementioned models attempt to describe the same
> things, the overarching, more abstract, set of concepts which includes
> those described things, /the proton/, /the neutron/ and /the electron/,
> is itself, an abstract model.
> 
>  
> 
> We can visualize a diagram, a graph, with a lexical symbol, “electron”,
> on the left side, which is related, by arrows pointing to the right, to
> a number of model component symbols (Dalton_electron, Thomson_electron,
> …). Each model component symbol is related to its containing model
> (Dalton_model, Thomson_model, …). Then, as the set of models under
> discussion attempt to describe the same things, each model component
> symbol can be related to the same abstract concept, e.g. /the electron
> /(abstract_electron), on the right side of the graph, which can be from
> an abstract model (abstract_model). Furthermore, each model can be
> related to that abstract model. The lexeme “electron”, from the left
> side of the visualized diagram, can also be related to the abstract
> concept, /the electron/, from the right side of the diagram, as it is
> another possible sense of the meaning of the lexeme.
> 
>  
> 
> As an ideal natural language parser processed and interpreted the
> contents of a physics textbook, it might find that the lexeme “electron”
> meant different things in different chapters as the textbook’s authors
> brought the audience on a journey through a number of models. The matter
> might become more pronounced as an ideal natural language parser or
> interpreter processed a set of physics textbooks, from kindergarten
> through university graduate level physics, and attempted to merge the
> contents together into a knowledgebase.
> 
>  
> 
> I wonder what others in this mailing list might think about these topics
> (models and semantics, semantics in multi-model scenarios) and whether
> there might be any publications on these topics to recommend?
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Adam Sobieski
> 
>  
>

Received on Monday, 10 February 2020 13:29:26 UTC