Kingsley,
you wrote:
If each part of a statement (e.g., an RDF triple) is denoted by a derefencable URI (e.g., an HTTP URI) you end up with a much deeper, web-like, and logically comprehensible graph, to both humans and machines. Generally, this concept is
what's referred to as RDF [1] based Linked Data [2] and the result is a Semantic Web [3].
Well, you get a ‘semantic network’, if that is what you mean by “Semantic Web”. The problem is that the edges of the graph you get are all labeled ‘also appears
in’ or ‘more about’, which does not convey much in the line of semantics. The ancient and venerable library science equivalent is “Keyword in context”. You have to interpret the triples (reference in position relative to other references) to obtain the semantic
value. If I understand the model you propose, the “nodes” of your graph are the triples, not the IRIs. One of the issues in Linked Open Data is whether the “link” is the semantics-free link between two occurrences of the same IRI, or it is the ‘verb’ in
the triple that connects the IRIs. Both camps have apparently found it useful to co-opt the LOD term.
As Mark Linehan pointed out, you can treat any predicate as a class of states. You need additional predicates to describe roles in the states, but you can
have as many roles and associations as you like. There is a lot to be said for
A Relation B,
and different lot to be said for
Relation R1, A SubjectOf R1 (aka R1 Agent A), B ObjectOf R1 (aka R1 Patient B)
But the one thing that can be said is that using Relation in BOTH ways will almost certainly confuse the semantics of the graph.
-Ed
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Kingsley Idehen
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 1:17 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Requesting Opinions on the Benefits of Predicates as Nodes
On 6/11/14 11:59 AM, Frank Guerino wrote:
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?
If each part of a statement (e.g., an RDF triple) is denoted by a derefencable URI (e.g., an HTTP URI) you end up with a much deeper, web-like, and logically comprehensible graph, to both humans and machines. Generally, this concept is what's referred to as
RDF [1] based Linked Data [2] and the result is a Semantic Web [3].
Links:
[1] http://bit.ly/1fluti1 -- RDF described from my own Glossary of terms doc (which in of itself is an RDF based Linked Data exploitation example)
[2] http://bit.ly/1frjVhu -- Linked Data
[3] http://bit.ly/1nxcpH9 -- Semantic Web .
--
Regards,
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
|
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|