- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2022 14:20:59 -0400
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
On 8/16/22 12:56, Holger Knublauch wrote: > A next generation of RDF(-star) can hopefully get rid of rdf:Lists > through reification with an index property. That sounds surprising, given the widespread dislike of reification. Do you have a pointer to an explanation? Incidentally, I personally think RDF should natively support lists, which David Wood and James Leigh proposed at the 2009 W3C RDF Next Steps workshop: https://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/papers/ws14 David Booth > > Holger > > >> On 16 Aug 2022, at 6:45 pm, Enrico Daga <enricodaga@gmail.com >> <mailto:enricodaga@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I just stumbled upon this thread. Last year I co-authored a paper that >> analysed the impact of alternative design patterns for lists on the >> efficiency of list-relevant operations in SPARQL. OWL was not a topic >> of the paper, although we also considered OWL-compliant solutions, in >> the analysis. One conclusion was that the rdf:List model was very >> inefficient for many of the operations, and managing indexing in >> properties or using container membership properties was generally >> preferable. I am aware this goes against the OWL requirements but drop >> the ball nevertheless, in case this is useful. The article is [1]. >> >> Best wishes >> >> Enrico >> >> >> [1] Daga, Enrico, Albert Meroño-Peñuela, and Enrico Motta. "Sequential >> linked data: The state of affairs." /Semantic Web/ Preprint (2021): 1-36. >> -- >> Enrico Daga >> http://about.me/enridaga <http://about.me/enridaga> >> >> >> On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 at 19:02, Balhoff, Jim <balhoff@renci.org >> <mailto:balhoff@renci.org>> wrote: >> >> I proposed a change to OWL API that would allow parsing certain >> lists into Abox axioms: https://github.com/owlcs/owlapi/pull/1074 >> <https://github.com/owlcs/owlapi/pull/1074> >> >> This would only be active if the ontology is specifically using >> the RDF list predicates as object properties. That change would be >> helpful for loading the proposed FHIR data model into Protégé and >> then being able to access items in lists (assuming that OWL API >> version makes its way into Protégé). >> >> I think outside of Protégé/OWL API, dealing with list data might >> not be as much of a problem, like if using an RDF rule engine to >> make inferences. >> >>> On Aug 12, 2022, at 8:25 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org >>> <mailto:eric@w3.org>> wrote: >>> >>> Molstly protégé, and other OWL-capable tools like StarDog. I'd >>> like to >>> figure out for FHIR whether to use RDF lists, but I think it's >>> important for the SemWeb as a whole to solve this. As it stands, it >>> looks like one should never use RDF lists. >>> >>> Given that way more RDF data processing happens with SPARQL than with >>> OWL, and SPARQL *can* access lists (albeit awkwardly), it sounds >>> crazy >>> to forgo using lists just because someone someday might want to >>> do OWL >>> inference over the entities in the list. Voilà the dilema. >>> >>> It would also be really nice to understand if there is a fundamental >>> reason for this limitation in OWL. I beleieve that Jim's research >>> shows that at least OWL-API can be updated to allow lists. If this is >>> the case, and this can be replicated in other OWL implementations, >>> then perhaps the answer is a period of civil disobedience where folks >>> violate the spec, use tools that support that violation, and >>> eventually update the OWL spec. This interim solution could be made >>> official with an OWL 1.1. errata stating that rdf:first/rest *can* be >>> used in axioms. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 08:47:27PM +0000, Mark Wallace wrote: >>>> Eric, are you looking for a solution that runs Within protege? >>>> Within a triple store? >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org <mailto:eric@w3.org>> >>>> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2022 8:26 AM >>>> To: semantic-web@w3.org <mailto:semantic-web@w3.org> >>>> <semantic-web@w3.org <mailto:semantic-web@w3.org>> >>>> Cc: Jim Balhoff <balhoff@renci.org <mailto:balhoff@renci.org>>; >>>> dbooth@dbooth.org <mailto:dbooth@dbooth.org> <dbooth@dbooth.org >>>> <mailto:dbooth@dbooth.org>> >>>> Subject: OWL and RDF lists >>>> >>>> RDF lists (technically "collections" ¹) have terse abbreviations in >>>> Turtle/SPARQL and a "ladder" representation as triples. >>>> >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_France >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_France>> :orderedColors _:1 . >>>> _:1 rdf:first "blue" . >>>> _:1 rdf:rest _:2 . >>>> _:2 rdf:first "white" . >>>> _:2 rdf:rest _:3 . >>>> _:3 rdf:first "red" . >>>> _:3 rdf:rest rdf:nil . >>>> >>>> The SPARQL 1.2 WG is wrestling with lists ², and JSON-LD 1.1 has >>>> added >>>> support for them ³. OWL however, specifically disables them by >>>> prohibiting inferences across predicates in the rdf: namespace à la >>>> Jim Balhoff's example ⁴; >>>> [[ >>>> :contains rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty ; >>>> owl:propertyChainAxiom ( rdf:rest :contains ) . >>>> ]] >>>> >>>> FHIR is a set of models for clinical record. It has >>>> representations in >>>> XML, JSON and RDF. There's a playground ⁵ to explore alternatives >>>> which illustrates alternatives, including whether to use >>>> rdf:Collections (see button at top-right). With collections turned >>>> off, we have to roll our own order (fhir:index 0, 1, 2...), which >>>> kinda goes against RDF standards. >>>> >>>> I put together a gist which illustrates three observations we might >>>> encounter in a patient's record. The codes for the first two >>>> appear in >>>> a SNOMED hieararchy you might query for evidence of bone density >>>> loss >>>> (clinical example, balancing corticosteroids against osteoporosis). >>>> >>>> https://fhircat.github.io/fhir-rdf-playground/?axes=rdvCh&manifestURL=https://gist.githubusercontent.com/ericprud/8e53eef196ccdc2c43f40238fdd06691/raw/224261f5055a3980acd79570fe5caeaf4a4b2d84/osteo-manifest.json >>>> <https://fhircat.github.io/fhir-rdf-playground/?axes=rdvCh&manifestURL=https://gist.githubusercontent.com/ericprud/8e53eef196ccdc2c43f40238fdd06691/raw/224261f5055a3980acd79570fe5caeaf4a4b2d84/osteo-manifest.json> >>>> >>>> >>>> Solbrig et al demonstrate how the SNOMED hierarchy can be used for >>>> valuable clinical insights ⁶ *iff* we can work write OWL axioms >>>> which >>>> simultaneously access the SNOEMD hierarchy and the codes in the >>>> paitent data. But as Jim demonstrated, that requires OWL axioms that >>>> reference the forbidden rdf: namespace. >>>> >>>> Thoughts? Advice? >>>> >>>> >>>> ¹ https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/#collections >>>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/#collections> >>>> ² https://github.com/w3c/sparql-12/issues/46 >>>> <https://github.com/w3c/sparql-12/issues/46> >>>> ³ >>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/#example-82-specifying-that-a-collection-is-ordered-in-the-context >>>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/#example-82-specifying-that-a-collection-is-ordered-in-the-context> >>>> ⁴ >>>> https://gist.github.com/balhoff/62fb8f2c1e29bc0d4d27c3df0d005154 >>>> <https://gist.github.com/balhoff/62fb8f2c1e29bc0d4d27c3df0d005154> >>>> ⁵ https://fhircat.github.io/fhir-rdf-playground/ >>>> <https://fhircat.github.io/fhir-rdf-playground/> >>>> ⁶ https://github.com/BD2KOnFHIR/BLENDINGFHIRandRDF >>>> <https://github.com/BD2KOnFHIR/BLENDINGFHIRandRDF> >>>> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2022 18:21:13 UTC