Hi Tom, (01)
That's how I build RDF topic maps. (02)
Please note: there really are two defined approaches to topic mapping:
the XML topic maps standard XTM, which does not create Associations
(relations) as topics, and the Topic Maps Reference Model, which is
agnostic; every object in the map is, in fact, a topic (SubjectProxy
-- a proxy for a 'topic out there'). I write to the TMRM. (03)
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:09 AM, tknorr <tknorr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Frank,
>
> We use triplets (subject, relation, object) where the relation is a concept
> of the same kind as subject and object, just as you describe in your plan.
> It has a lot of advantages.
>
> Not being tied to a fixed set of relations is the biggest.
>
> When you work with this, in the way we ended up, you can isolate categories
> of relations. We built code extensively around these categories and it can
> be exploited to generate/suggest relations.
>
> Categories we isolated so far:
>
> Syntactical
>
> We compose complex concepts using a 'syntactical' category with the
> concepts: head, modifier (variations), pre-postpositions, … Some of this
> might not make sense for you, but we actually generate the concept
> descriptions automatically by parsing the semantic network of a concept and
> generate the language translation for it.
>
> A side note here, the head-relation defaults as the type-of, but can be
> overwritten is need be.
>
> Semantic
>
> While all these relations are somewhat semantic there is a category that
> fits the name best. The classic type-of and part-of are in here but also e.g
> 'for the purpose of' which is a composite. Prepositions and postpositions
> play a big role here and are optional on their respective ends of the
> relation. Sometimes the preposition is the only relation, it might have a
> semantic net attached that specified exactly how it is meant to be
> interpreted.
>
> Type defining
>
> We do have currently a set of relations that are specifically used to define
> types but I suspect they will disappear in the future because they can be
> automatically derived. We use them to some extent for modelling and to
> generate code (e.g. xsd schemas) to import structured data. The relations
> here are the typical optional/mandatory single/multiple value/feature
> combinations.
>
> Our composites can inherit both values and features from their types, and
> the type by default is the head of a phrase.
>
> Watch out for knowledge definition loops! They are most likely the reason
> your system has a 'headache'.
>
> Tom Knorr
>
> The NeuroCollective
>
> On 06/11/2014 09:30 AM, Philip Jackson wrote:
>
> Will a predicate C be able to link two nodes A and B that may themselves be
> predicates?
>
> It seems like this would be another useful side-effect of making predicates
> first-class citizens...
>
>> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:20:31 -0700
>> From: jackpark@xxxxxxxxx
>> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Requesting Opinions on the Benefits of
>> Predicates as Nodes
>>
>> I see an additional benefit, but not necessarily affiliated with the
>> way you describe an 'implicit node' -- where a predicate appears,
>> still, to be a second-class citizen in the graph.
>>
>> Let me explain.
>>
>> Mostly, it would seem that a predicate in a triple performs the task
>> of linking subject and object; it has no other reason for being there
>> other than to complete the assertion, e.g. A relates to B.
>>
>> But, consider this: if a specific *instance* of a predicate exists as
>> a connective between two objects, then it can be said to carry the
>> full semantics of the assertion itself. The instance is not an
>> 'implicit' node: it is a vertex like any other in a graph.
>>
>> If I say: A cause B, then the node which is the 'cause' predicate can
>> carry the full semantics of the triple itself. It's not just your
>> father's predicate anymore; it's a first class citizen.
>>
>> Why do I care?
>>
>> Consider that said predicate has entails a possibly complex biography.
>> Who discovered it? What evidence supports it? What debates are in play
>> about it?
>>
>> I can't assign or otherwise link that biography to either A or B, but
>> only to the specific predicate that ties them together.
>>
>> If I might add, I will assert that predicates as first class citizens
>> is perhaps the only difference between an RDF graph and a topic map.
>> I've built topic maps with RDF using the BigData RDF store; they work
>> just fine, can import and export from, e.g. OWL documents, but with a
>> loss of information when the topic map becomes OWL.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Frank Guerino <Frank.Guerino@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > For a number of years, we've been working with Data Driven Synthesis as
>> > a
>> > means of rapidly generating Data Networks/Graphs and the Knowledge
>> > Constructs (e.g. Library Catalogs, Indexes, Taxonomies, Visualizations,
>> > etc.) that help humans make easier & better sense of them (If
>> > interested,
>> > see NOUNZ). Like many other Graph representations, we use "triples" or
>> > "triplets" to help represent Semantic Relationships, where descriptive
>> > Predicates are used as the binding between Subject Nodes and Object
>> > Nodes.
>> >
>> > To date, we've only treated Subjects and Objects as "Nodes" but we've
>> > always
>> > known that we can (and have planned to) implement and treat Predicates
>> > as a
>> > special type of "implicit" Node, as well. (Time didn’t' allow us to get
>> > to
>> > doing so, until now.) We believe that doing so grants users of Graphs
>> > certain benefits. We've identified three (3)…
>> >
>> > #1: The first and obvious advantage is that users can now enter a Graph
>> > from
>> > any Edge/Predicate as easily as they can enter from any Node, and start
>> > to
>> > traverse the Graph based on that point of entry.
>> >
>> > #2: The second advantage of treating Predicates as Nodes is that a
>> > Predicate
>> > can now be used as an "Index" or "Pointer" that allows users to quickly
>> > find
>> > all Nodes which are tied to said Predicate (or any Predicates that match
>> > certain traits). In other words, it's a way of asking the Graph to
>> > quickly
>> > identify all Nodes that are connected to a specific Edge/Link/Predicate
>> > (or
>> > any of a common set of Predicate traits). This means that, in addition
>> > to
>> > being able to ask "Node-oriented" questions of the Graph, you can now
>> > also
>> > ask "Predicate/Edge-oriented" questions of the Graph, as well. This
>> > leads
>> > to even more complex scenarios of being able to ask questions of, both,
>> > Nodes and Edges.
>> >
>> > #3: The third advantage (based on the second) is that traversal of a
>> > Graph
>> > can be even quicker, leading to even shorter paths, because instead of
>> > only
>> > traversing a Graph from Node-to-Node-to-Node, through Nodes, users can
>> > now
>> > traverse from any Edge/Predicate to any other Edge/Predicate, through
>> > Edges/Predicates.
>> >
>> > My question to the Community: Aside from the above three, do you see any
>> > other benefits that we're missing?
>> >
>> > Thanks for your help.
>> >
>> > My Best,
>> >
>> > Frank
>> > --
>> > Frank Guerino, Chairman
>> > The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT)
>> > http://www.if4it.com
>> > 1.908.294.5191 (M)
>> >
>> >
>> > _________________________________________________________________
>> > 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
>> >
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|