Preview: (01)
>> Can you express the following with triples: (02)
>> (and
>> (isBetweenOnPath WashingtonDC Maryland Virginia I95)
>> (not (isBetweenOnPath WashingtonDC Maryland Virginia I495)))
>> ?
> I think we are now talking past ourselves. (03)
Does that mean no?
========
On Wed, September 5, 2012 07:22, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 9/5/12 12:02 AM, doug foxvog wrote:
>> On Tue, September 4, 2012 17:02, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>> On 9/4/12 3:41 PM, doug foxvog wrote:
>>>> On Tue, September 4, 2012 12:34, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>>>> I believe Data denotes Subject Observation.
>>>>> I believe all observations are comprised of:
>>>>> 1. a subject
>>>>> 2. subject attributes
>>>>> 3. subject attribute values.
>> ...
>>>> One common type of observation is that A is between B and C.
>>>> How would you express this with a single triple? 8)# (04)
>>> I would state that A is between B. A is Between C. Then I would define
>>> the semantics of the 'Between' predicate .
>> !??
>> Let's explore this:
>> (and
>> (between 10 5 11)
>> (between 10 4 11)
>> (between 10 6 11)
>> (between 10 7 11))
>> Using the KI translator this becomes:
>> AND
>> 10 is between 5
>> 10 is between 11
>> 10 is between 4
>> 10 is between 11
>> 10 is between 6
>> 10 is between 11
>> 10 is between 7
>> 10 is between 11. (05)
>> What semantics does the between predicate have? (06)
> And that isn't what I was conveying to you. (07)
I'm sorry. I now (think i) understand that you understood my English
description of a ternary relation as the conjunction of two binary
relations. I agree that an alternate parse of
"A is between B and C"
could be:
"A is between B AND A is between C".
If i used "above" instead of "between", this would be appropriate. (08)
However, the semantics of "between" is that it designates some sort of
figurative space, the boundaries of which are its two arguments. (09)
The sentence then means that a figurative space exists; that space is
bounded by B and C and does not overlap them, and that A is figuratively
located in that figurative space. Depending upon the common type
of thing that A, B, and C are, the type of the figurative space is
constrained. (010)
With this model you CAN model "A is between B and C" using triples
relatively easily, as long as you also use a function:
(locationOf A (BetweenFn B C)) (011)
> Basically, at what point did
> you indicate we where dealing with typed literals? (012)
I did not. I was using English, not a logical language. (013)
This is immaterial to the point we were discussing. (014)
> You said A between B and B between C. (015)
I did not say "A between B and B between C". I said that a common type
of observation is "A is between B and C". This is naturally a ternary
relationship. I was providing it as a ternary relationship and asking how
you would model it with binary relationships. (016)
> Why on earth should I assume A, B, and C are typed literals? (017)
You shouldn't. But what does that have to do with modeling using
triples? (018)
I simplified things for you by only using a ternary relationship.
Betweenness implies some sort of path. Using integers
gave a default path. My next example uses spatial objects (which
are instances of classes) instead of literals. (019)
> Just because you used the literal 'Between' in some kind of
> fuzzy context? (020)
> RDF is pretty clear about the semantics for typed literals. (021)
So i expected you to know what i meant with one integer
being between two other integers. (022)
>> How about the quaternary predicate, isBetweenOnPath?
>> Can you express the following with triples: (023)
>> (and
>> (isBetweenOnPath WashingtonDC Maryland Virginia I95)
>> (not (isBetweenOnPath WashingtonDC Maryland Virginia I495))) (024)
> I think we are now talking past ourselves. (025)
Huh? This is what i was talking about from the beginning. (026)
Does that mean no? (027)
> If you have some alternative to RDF that works, just point me to it. I
> think that's the best use of our respective time at this juncture. (028)
We have been discussing problems with existing implementations (e.g.,
RDF) and the utility of less restrictive SW encoding languages. I have
not been pushing an already implemented web scale solution. (029)
Do i know current KIF, Cyc, or Prolog reasoners that operate efficiently
at web scale? No. Do they require all terms to be represented by URIs?
No. Could implementations that map between expressions in such
languages and terms using URIs be created? Certainly. (030)
Can Cyc express the above type of statements and reason about them
with thousands of assertions? Yes. The current OpenCyc could not
handle billions of assertions, though. (031)
Can Prolog express the above type of statements and reason about them
with thousands of assertions? Yes. I don't know what the limits are on
current Prolog reasoners. I note that the "SICStus Prolog User’s Manual"
(https://www.sncnw.se/sicstus/docs/latest4/pdf/sicstus.pdf)
uses such constructs as examples:
"connects(san_francisco, oakland, bart_train)."
that can be reasoned with. My guess is that existing Prolog reasoners are
more efficient than existing RDF reasoners. I may, of course, be wrong. (032)
-- doug (033)
> Kingsley (034)
>> -- doug foxvog
>> ...
>>> Kingsley
>>>> -- doug foxvog (035)
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen (036)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (037)
|