- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 16:25:13 -0500
- To: "Danny Ayers" <danny@panlanka.net>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
- Message-Id: <v04210142b72c93c1d464@[205.160.76.183]>
>Nice to see something real-world for a change. However, you only go >as far as to discuss representing or encoding (correct word?) the >the data in triples. There's no denying that the structure would be >a bit tangled, but look at what we might want to do with it - >communicate & reason. Ok, we could pass on 4-ary relations, as long >as the receiver was prepared to accept 4-ary structures. How might >it be transferred? Any number of ways. You could do it in XML, for example. You could do it using Sexpressions, or even in HTML if you were willing to write a (very) simple parser. What kind of transfer problems are you worried about? >Same with reasoning - how would you go about querying this alongside >e.g. a list of Director, Age Restriction, Country of origin, >Duration + another 4 sets I can't think of... Reasoners have been using formats like this since the 1960s. You would unify the two expressions from left to right. >I also suspect that there is something happening at a psychological >level in these arguments - it's far easier for a human to relate to >information in a structure like that below - but is this necessarily >the case for machines? Yes, there are significant computational advantages. In general, the more stuff you can incorporate into the unifier, the more efficient the inference search: you tend to be trading an exponential for a linear cost, a very good trade. Pat Hayes > > >--- >Danny Ayers ><http://www.isacat.net/>http://www.isacat.net > >-----Original Message----- >From: www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org >[mailto:www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Ziv Hellman >Sent: 19 May 2001 23:18 >To: Sandro Hawke >Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org >Subject: RE: Why Triples? (was Re: What do the ontologists want) > > > There's no reason a set of triples like > > > > <a, color, red> > > <a, size, big> > > <a, flavor, sweet> > > <b, color, green> > > <b, size, small> > > <b, flavor, bitter> > > > > can't be presented to users as > > > > object color size flavor > > ====== ===== ==== ===== > > a red big sweet > > b green small bitter > > > >This is a nice example, but if you examine it closely you will >notice that it does not represent a true multi-ary relation, but >rather a serialization of natural binary relations: an object has a >colour, it has a size, it has a flavour, and each of these is an >attribute of the object. In this case, the table can be directly >reduced to the triples, and vice-versa. Add price to the list later, >and you have just tacked on yet another binary predicate. > >But consider the following more complicated table that one might >encounter in real life and want to make available on a semantic web: > > >month city cinema theatre film >------- ---------- ----------- ------------ >--------- > >April Tel Aviv Globus 1 Pokemon 2 >April Tel Aviv Globus 1 Gladiator >April Tel Aviv Globus 2 Miss >Congeniality >April Tel Aviv Peer 1 >Miss Congeniality >April Tel Aviv Peer 2 >Cast Away >April Jerusalem Gil 1 >Pokemon 2 >April Jerusalem Gil 2 >Proof of Life >April Jerusalem Globus 1 15 Minutes >April Jerusalem Globus 2 102 Dalmatians >May Tel Aviv Globus 1 Pokemon 2 >May Tel Aviv Globus 1 Billy Elliot >May Tel Aviv Globus 2 The Mummy >May Tel Aviv Peer 1 >The Mummy >May Tel Aviv Peer 2 >Exit Wounds >May Jerusalem Gil 1 >Pokemon 2 >May Jerusalem Gil 2 >The Mummy >May Jerusalem Globus 1 A >Hard Day's Night >May Jerusalem Globus 2 15 Minutes > > >Unfortunately, no matter how one views this, there is no way to >reduce the information content here to binary attributes. In order >to encode it as ground atom triples, one would probably artificially >have to create 18 objects, each of which would then be associated in >a binary relation to each basic item in the table. The resulting >data construct would look so baroque and/or contain so much >redundancy that I would guess someone somewhere will eventually >notice that RDF has containers and decide to ship the table more >straightforwardly as a list of lists and by-pass the triples >altogether. > > > > The best reasons I've heard for triples: > > > > We don't want to grant any particular properties or relations > > special status. > > > > If we later want to add a property (column) "price" or even "price at > > Whole Foods Market in Newtonville on 2001-05-18" we can do that > > without breaking anything. > >In the cinemas example above, it is not immediately clear that >adding new triples somewhere deep in a complicated triple encoding >of the data is easier -- or less likely to break anything -- than >tacking on a new value at the end of each list in a list of lists >encoding. > > >Cheers, > >Ziv > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Saturday, 19 May 2001 17:25:12 UTC