[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Schema.org is not OWL-based (was Re: Toward Human-Le

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:59:00 -0400
Message-id: <535E6CB4.7000803@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 4/28/14 10:25 AM, John F Sowa wrote:
> Kingsley,
> I want to emphasize that Guha is the chief architect of Schema.org.    (01)

Yes, and that isn't news to me :-)    (02)

> He earned his PhD under John McCarthy at Stanford, and he wrote his
> dissertation on contexts and microtheories.  He implemented that
> approach in Cyc, of which he was the associate director.    (03)

Not news to me either.    (04)

> Guha was also the chief designer of RDF, and he co-authored the
> LBase (logic base) for RDF with Pat Hayes.  So he knows that:
> KI
>> GoodRelations assimilation does have the downside of its semantics
>> being blurred. Fundamentally, Schema.org is a vocabulary with
>> absolute minimal semantic fidelity. In short, GoodRelations assimilation
>> is done by way of complete namespace replacement without any use
>> of the following:
>> 1. owl:equivalentClass
>> 2. owl:equivalentProperty
>> 3. rdfs:subClassOf
>> 4. rdfs:subPropertyOf
>> 5. owl:inverseOf.
> Guha is also a politician.    (05)

I would say pragmatic.    (06)

>   So is Peter Norvig -- the research director
> of Google, who co-authored a widely used book on AI.  They know which
> way the wind blows, and it's not in the direction of OWL.    (07)

This isn't about OWL specificity. I use OWL examples because OWL exists 
and is implemented across many tools, including the ones I use.    (08)

>    They also
> know that English paragraphs are a better way to introduce ontology
> and to lure in prospective users.    (09)

The world isn't comprised solely of English speakers. In addition, use 
of English and formal logic don't have to be mutually exclusive .    (010)

> KI
>> In sense, GoodRelation's perceived assimilation into Schema.org is
>> just another case of smart bridging that understands that there will
>> be a time (very soon) when we get beyond all the *myopic* syntax and
>> markup language distractions that currently obscure the value and
>> power of entity relation semantics.
> I strongly agree.  And I believe that Guha et al. have done their
> homework in making sure the Schema.org hierarchy meets the logical
> criteria above -- which, by the way, can be expressed more readably
> in Aristotle's notation:  http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/aristo.pdf    (011)

Yes, but who is using Aristotle's notation (directly) right now in 
regards to merging disparate data sources across the Web, Intranets, and 
Extranets?    (012)

I am using OWL to solve real data integration challenges right now. I 
can demonstrate its utility against live data comprised of 50 Billion+ 
RDF based statements, today.    (013)

I am not speculating, I produce live demos with ease because the data in 
question exists and it's Web accessible (with or without Schema.org and 
Google's indexes), OWL exists, and its is usable today, in pragmatic ways.    (014)

> To provide formal proofs of Aristotle's system, John Venn developed
> a model theoretic foundation that can be and has been taught to
> elementary-school children.  If you can teach it to grade-school
> kids, you have a chance of getting the idea across to the average IT
> manager.  See slides 31 to 35 of aristo.pdf.
> Recommended directions for the future:
>    1. A base hierarchy such as Schema.org with English paragraphs
>       to describe each term *and* formal definitions upon request.    (015)

Why do formal definitions have to be on request?    (016)

Why do existing formal definitions have to be discarded?    (017)

When did mutual inclusion become a bad thing?    (018)

What happened to "horses for courses" as fundamental best practice? The 
very feature that actually makes the Web work.    (019)

>    2. Tools such as CEDAR (copy below), which runs circles around OWL
>       in performance on hierarchies of more than 900,000 terms *and*
>       has a far more flexible and powerful reasoning system.    (020)

Since I have 50 Billion+ RDF statements available to anyone with an 
internet connection, why can't you prove this via a live demonstration? 
That's what I would do.    (021)

>    3. Notations that provide a bridge between ontology and mainstream IT.
>       UML diagrams would be an important part.  Instead of OCL, I suggest
>       controlled NLs, such as Aristotle's and others -- supplemented with
>       more diagrams, such as John Venn's, Topic Maps, Concept Maps, etc.    (022)

There are already enough notations in existence today. The issue remains 
seeing how they compliment i.e., mutual inclusion as opposed to mutual 
exclusion re. "horses for courses" best practice.    (023)

> John
> ___________________________________________________________________
> The following excerpt is from http://www.jfsowa.com/logic/sorts.pdf
> More recently, Amir and Aït-Kaci (2013) compared the CEDAR system
> to six OWL-based reasoners:  Fact++, HermiT, Pellet, TrOWL, RacerPro,
> and SnoRocket.  They compared them on four taxonomies that ranged in
> size from 111,559 sorts or classes (Wikipedia) to 903,617 sorts (NCBI).
> For classification, CEDAR was among the three fastest for all four
> taxonomies. On the Wikipedia taxonomy, it was five times faster than
> the second best (Fact++). For querying, CEDAR beat all the others by
> several orders of magnitude. The query time is the most important,
> since a classified CEDAR taxonomy can be saved and reused. CEDAR
> also detects cycles in the taxonomy, which are a serious source of
> inconsistencies.
> Amir, Samir, & Hassan Aït-Kaci (2013) Fast taxonomic reasoning based
> on lattice operations, CEDAR Technical Report No. 3, LIRIS-UFR
> d’Informatique. http://cedar.liris.cnrs.fr/papers/ctr3.pdf
> For related issues, see the three slide presentations by Hassan A-K:
> Is it possible to make the Semantic Web a reality?
> http://cedar.liris.cnrs.fr/papers/intis.pdf
> Reasoning and the Semantic web,
> http://cedar.liris.cnrs.fr/papers/ontoforum.pdf
> Empirical study of high-performance triple stores,
>    (024)

[1] http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/horses_for_courses -- Horses for 
courses .    (025)

--     (026)

Regards,    (027)

Kingsley Idehen 
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen    (028)

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

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    (01)

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