Re: [ontology-summit] [ReusableContent] Partitioning the problem

[Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2/6/14 6:52 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

On 2/5/14 4:13 PM, Barkmeyer, Edward J wrote:

John,

 

We will agree to disagree.  I was using the terminology as defined in the discipline, in order to make the distinction clear. In short, ‘connotation’ and ‘denotation’ are terms-of-art in formal logic and computational linguistics and some formal semantics circles, and I do realize that they are unexpected outside those circles.  I personally recognized those definitions as ‘anti-mainstream’ when I first encountered them.  I just prefer using the terminology of the established discipline, however weird, to trying to sort out a terminological issue (reference) by inventing my own.  (In a similar way, John Sowa and I talked past one another in using the term ‘model’, which, as a term-of-art in logic, refers to a population, a given universe of discourse.)  This is a rat-hole we don’t need to go further down.

 

The important point is that the ‘referent’ of a term can be either the intension (the class, as a set of common properties)  or the extension (its members) or both (in some sense).  RDF does not care; OWL does.   The LinkedOpenData technology is founded on RDF IRIs as ‘terms’ that refer to (extensional) individuals.  In that view, memberOf and instanceOf and subclassOf are just verbs that relate to two ‘individual things’ that have IRIs.  In OWL, those verbs have well-defined semantics, and that semantics is only well-defined when the subject and object roles of the triple are played by the proper kinds of things, and OWL distinguishes ‘class’ from ‘individual’, although both are still nominally extensional.  So we are still trying to define the relationship between the structured ontological approach to capturing knowledge and the LOD approach to capturing knowledge, and to define the discipline for implementing that. 

 

Michael and Kingsley were discussing aspects of this idea, but I was confused by their wording.  So I tried to clarify, and apparently made the problem worse.

 

I don't think so, I think you added a dimension of clarity using more formal terminology, at least from my vantage point :-)

Some posts demonstrating these concepts in actions:

1. http://bit.ly/1nbrV8S -- post I made a while back to demonstrate a bridge ontology that enables me exploit schema.org without worrying about issues of ambiguity re. what their URIs denote (currently, the solutions from live links don't work because the inference rules data changed since the time of the post, I am working on fixing that)

2. http://bit.ly/1dr9mbj -- DBpedia data cleansing driven by inference

3. http://bit.ly/1gNw45f -- Inference example based on  British Royal Family relationships.


While I fix the issues with #1 here's a shortcut demonstrating the same point bearing in mind the following components:

[1] Mapping/Bridge/Meta Ontology -- this is where I have owl:equivalentClass relations that indicate that the classes: foaf:Organization and schemaOrg:Organization are equivalent

[2] Use of the Mapping/Bridge/Meta Ontology as the inference rule used by the reasoner (in this case, the one built into Virtuoso)

[3] Selection of Document/Database/Named Graph identifiers that scope my query results (since I am performing this against a live 50 Billion+ RDF statements/triples instance for which duplicates in a solution would initially confuse the uninitiated)

[4] URL pattern to facilitate the #3 of the form: http://lod.openlinksw.com/describe/?uri={uri-that-denotes-an-entity}&inf={uri-that-denotes-an-inference-rule}&graph={uri-that-denotes-a-local-db-hosted-or-public-document-comprised-of-rdf-tbox-or-rbox-or-abox-statements}

Live Demo Links:

[1] http://lod.openlinksw.com/describe/?uri=http://schema.org/Organization -- describes the entity denoted by <http://schema.org/Organization>

[2] http://lod.openlinksw.com/describe/?uri=http://schema.org/Organization&inf=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.openlinksw.com%2Fschemas%2Frdfs&graph=http%3A%2F%2Feducation.data.gov.uk%2F -- describes the entity denoted by <http://schema.org/Organization> with inference and reasoning plus a specific internal document reference that denotes a named graph comprised of rdf statements that describe organizations as instances of the classes foaf:Organization and <http://schema.org/Organization> which manifests as union of the instances associated with these classes .


Kingsley

In case #2 isn't working, you can try [3].

[3] http://lod.openlinksw.com/describe/?url=""> -- showing the effects of owl:equivalentClass inference and reasoning.

-- 

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

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/   
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014  
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/     (01)