[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Grover Models

To: "Ontolog (E-mail)" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "John McClure" <jmcclure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 15:06:45 -0800
Message-id: <002b01ce5bf8$06af6ca0$0200a8c0@McClure>
On Fri, May 24, 2013 11:53, doug foxvog wrote:
>On Thu, May 23, 2013 00:34, jmcclure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> I really appreciate the amount of your time and the depth of
>> your responses to my questions - you've sharpened my
>understanding of a
>> few things (and thanks for the name inspiration). I hope you
>> also.
>So far, i have been confused by this syntax.
>>      * Grover is a vocabulary of properties - of prepositions plus
>> tenses of 'to-have'
>The above sentence the syntax you used was created prior to your email
>including it.  I did a few quick web searches but found
>nothing applicable for "Grover model".
>Could you please provide a link to a document formally specifying
>the vocabulary and syntax and explaining the semantics of its
>statements?    (01)

JMc: Right I am developing this model now and, with your help!, am
understanding what needs to be in such document. This moment I'm trying to
bone up on DL vs FOL vs RDF, as I think Sowa suggested to me to do, before I
nervously speak again to that oracle :).    (02)

>>      * explicitly built atop RDF's model ..... "a
>> Resource instance HAS instances of Properties"
>>      * with
>> "loosely-coupling predicates" to reduce the size of ontologies, their
>> costs and scariness
>I have found what i've seen so far quite scary.    (03)

JMc: "Scary" is a monstrous ontology that is one-half bloated by unnecessary
predicates like "hasFather" and "isFatherOf" IN ADDITION TO concepts like
"Father". Such replication is a sure recipe for turning users OFF as they
contemplate learning a foreign vocabulary of predicates plus a vocabulary of
common nouns that the system understands (too). Users find massive reference
ontologies scary simply because they're being asked to promote a black box
they can't see inside.    (04)

The 'wiki way' is to bring ontologies down to earth, to enable people to
create additions to it themselves, not necessarily requiring costly/academic
ontologists.    (05)

>>      * A vocabulary intentionally trivial for anyone to
>> self-master
>That may be for a person who reads a document defining the vocabulary
>and syntax.  Why you have provided so far is not intuitive enough to
>understand, nor similar enough to any of the dozens of computer/data/
>ontology languages that i have learned for me to be clear of
>its meaning.    (06)

JMc: this is unfair to say. I am using triples syntax to state EXACTLY what
is meant. What you may find difficult to understand are the non-opaque names
of the resources I am referencing as subject and as object. It's a very
simple naming convention, the same as used in wikis, perhaps the most
populated kind of datasets on the planet. Wiki pagenames are
namespace:pagename, which I have cast as type:topicname, where the topicname
can be type:topicname itself, leading to constructs like <Father:Person:John
McClure>. Granted I caused a little confusion using the double-bracket
syntax native to wikis, eg [[Father:Person:John McClure]], but I see also <>
syntax used so I've adopted that to speak with you more effectively, on your
terms.    (07)

>>      * A vocabulary intentionally suitable for modelling
>> document content
>>      * Grover is a vocabulary of categories - of
>> adjectives & adverbs
>>      * that uses a highly useful naming scheme...
>> type:topic-name ... (see ISO Topic Maps)
>How does [[Sister:Person:X]] correspond to this?    (08)

JMc: This is a reference to a resource about Person:X's role as (a) Sister.
Work is needed on resource names to handle when multiple instances of
sisterhood exist for Person:X.    (09)

>>      * that implements the syntax
>> seen here eg past(Statement) must(Statement) etc
>Where is the missing argument in these statements?  The first
>statement is past relative to what time?  The second statement
>is required according to what authority?    (010)

JMc: Past is related to today, now, present. The exact moment the resource
is a "past" resource is indicated by properties of the resource, presumably
created by a bot that daily inspects current resources for . Authority is
indicated by properties of the resource too, via perhaps a "per" predicate
coupled with an Authority resource, eg    (011)

<Course:Econ 101> of <Type:Course>
<Course:Econ 201> of <Type:Course>
<Course:Econ 201> must have <Prerequisite:Course:Econ 201>
<Prerequisite:Course:Econ 201> of <Type:Prequisite>
<Prerequisite:Course:Econ 201> on <Date:Publication:2013 Course Offerings>
<Prerequisite:Course:Econ 201> for <Course:Econ 201>
<Prerequisite:Course:Econ 201> has <Course:Econ 101>
<Prerequisite:Course:Econ 201> per <Authority:Department:Economics>
<Authority:Department:Economics> of <Type:Authority>
<Authority:Department:Economics> for <Department:Economics>
<Department:Economics> of <Type:Department>
<Department:Economics> in <School:The Johns Hopkins University>
<School:The Johns Hopkins University> of <Type:University>
<Type:University> of <Type:School>    (012)

>> John Sowa's right that
>> "RDF and most versions of logic are not polymorphic"
>> meaning that prepositions' semantic rules would,
>> under Grover, depend on the types of
>> subject & predicate nodes present in a triple.
>One could create a theory that can do this:
>   (if
>      (and
>         (PRED X Y)
>         (type X TypeA)
>         (type Y TypeB))
>      <Statement>)    (013)

JMc: Here's my ignorance on full display: I have no idea whether this is
correct!    (014)

>> But I don't use a
>> property's name/range/domain as validation criteria,
>Thus data entry error could not be caught by a type violation.    (015)

JMc: Sorry, there are other ways to do type validations during data entry,
and anyway it's a poor user interface that allows a user to enter type
violations in the first place.    (016)

>> I see them as
>> indexes to the formalisms, in other words, I presume the validity of
>> relationships, looking up applicable formalisms as needed -- I think
>> that's what's meant in part by an open-world model.
>Open-world does not mean "anything goes".  It means that the knowledge
>base is not omniscient.  E.g., if the KB has information that Barack
>has a daughter named Sasha, that doesn't mean that Barak has only
>one daughter.
>    (017)

JMc: Agreed however you overlook the OWA nature of the operational ontology
itself -- namely, one that defines a Type:Daughter but not a Type:Son does
not mean that there is no Type:Son, and hence should a Son instance exist
within a graph, it is not NECESSARILY an error....    (018)

>> So, as
>> 'polymorphic properties' seem Sowa's only technical concern, and as I
>> expect little effort dealing with those, I see no impediment
>to bringing
>> a Grover front-end to my semantic wikis. To the extent he & others
>> believe that Grover is not a recommended practice,
>Who has recommended it?  Is it an ISO standard?    (019)

JMc: no not an ISO standard (although it seeks to incorporate ISO Topic
Maps). I am creating this ontology for use in semantic wikis, by normal
people. If the ontology is superior, then as computational ontologists,
you'll have to deal with seeing this kind of ontology as it's used more &
more in practice, should we be so fortunate.    (020)

-- John --    (021)

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    (022)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>