Dear Christian-Emil, On 29/7/2014 10:00 πμ, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote: > Dear all, > It should be unproblematic to add an RDF example to the scope note of E73. > This is just one example among others. > RDF is perhaps not the ideal solution to implement systems with deduction. Your comments well taken :-) - but I did not want to talk about AI and binary logic at all, nor about code running conclusions on its own. Belief values can be anything up to gut feelings. What I wanted to talk about is monitoring human-made inferences - S/W generated inferences only being a special kind of which are modified by belief values in the code itself. I agree with you that such as system must be able to distinguish between different parts of the graph. The total of propositions in a triple store using CRM is expected to be globally inconsistent, and anyhow the belief values are not adequately represented. Bayesian networks are among the kinds of reasoning users would apply - they do not fit with AI languages anyhow.
Therefore RDF should be sufficient to represent the chaining of arguments ? (see also Doerr, M., Kritsotaki, A., & Boutsika, A. (2011). Factual argumentation - a core model for assertions making <http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1921615>. /Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) /, /3/(3), 34, New York, NY, USA : ACM) In general, you can correctly conclude from a correct premise a wrong conclusion, if your argument is probabilistic. You can conclude from a wrong premise a correct conclusion - by chance, and you can make a wrong inference from a correct premise resulting in a correct conclusion , as many proofs in mathematics. I believe a minimal formal system for cultural discourse would be a combination of modal logic with unknown values. I agree that "the current RDF focus on facts obscures the logical focus" Best, martin > > Between a set of premises and a conclusion there must of course be a series > of applications of deduction rules. The premises are a set of facts (that is > assumed to be true). In a RDF triple store (heap) containing more facts than > relevant (or perhaps inconsistent with) the facts used in the deduction, the > set of facts used as the premises must be identified. I assume it is here the > named graphs are needed. > > To check results in hypothetic-deductive science (which I believe this is > all about) , one needs a) to check the way (deduction) from the premises to > the conclusion to see if it is valid under the assumption that the premises > are and b) check if the premises (the set of facts) are true/valid. > > Last time I worked with this was in the previous high days of AI in the end > of the 1980ies. At that time the focus was not so much on facts but on > deduction (type theory, lambda calculus, lisp, prolog). The current RDF focus > on facts obscure the logical focus. > > C-E > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of martin >> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:35 PM >> To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr; Dimitris Plexousakis >> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 >> Information Object to specifically include named graphs >> >> Dear Richard, >> >> On 28/7/2014 11:41 πμ, Richard Light wrote: >> >> >> Martin, >> >> I thought that a major merit of the CRM was that it was an abstract >> model, which could be instantiated using whatever technology was felt to be >> appropriate. That being the case, I would be concerned if RDF-specific >> techniques were presented to the world as the only way in which a particular >> challenge ("implementing argumentation systems ...") could be tackled using >> the CRM. Or are you talking specifically about RDF implementations of the >> CRM? >> >> >> I share your concerns :-) ! >> >> >> >> Why can't "premises and conclusions" be modelled using reification, >> so they can then be given a unique URI? This is the sort of approach which >> the >> BM has successfully deployed, as I understand it. I would be grateful if >> someone could provide a really simple concrete example which shows the >> need for the named graph approach. >> >> >> Your are right! >> >> Actually I see the "Named Graph" not as a particular RDF feature, but at the >> level of abstraction that Simon pointed >> out: A set of propositions with a "historical" identity which is not reduced >> to >> the identity of the set itself. >> >> The CRM uses an abstract data model of classes, superclasses, properties, >> superproperties etc., which is more or less the stable core of all data >> structures and KR models used so far in industrial systems. We have however >> adopted the term "property" from RDF, just to reduce the semantic gap for >> people now. Originally, we used TELOS terms, but KIF, OIL was equally >> compatible. >> >> The requirement to introduce argumentation structures into consistent >> graphs of propositions is relatively new. >> Reification is an atomic mechanism, which does not allow for describing that >> a >> set of propositions is believed together. Therefore it looses an important >> part >> of the semantics of argumentation. A Named Graph is in my mind an >> abstarction which subsumes reification. Reification is a workaround using a >> syntax which has not foreseen the problem before. Named Graph is a NEW >> logical construct not found in any other industrial KR model, and born out >> of a >> necessity that first showed up when integrating different sources. (Before, >> one could say AI just slept in a one-truth cyberworld with a god-like user or >> math on top of reality). >> >> I believe we need the Named Graph construct as a logical form, not as an RDF >> syntax, if we want to integrate provenance of knowledge with the CRM. So >> far, we have evidence of two real-life data structures, one is archaeological >> excavation records, and another description of medieval book-bindings, which >> systematically register source of evidence and concluded facts. E.g., >> geometric >> topology of stratigarphic units and microsopic stratigraphic interface >> properties are used to justify chronological sequence. In a simple model, >> this >> is atomic, in a more general, it is probabilistic Bayesian. So, we would >> need a >> "Typed Named Graph", which restricts the propositions in the Graph to a >> certain schema (topology, chronology), and then a relationship "is evidence >> for" >> between the typed named graphs. The assertion itself forms part of the belief >> implicit in the archaeological record. >> >> If there is any logician on this mailing list, a proper formulation of such a >> construct and an abstract syntax for the CRM would be great to have!!! >> >> We will try to suggest a graphic primitive, which is a bubble around the >> propositions with a "hot spot" on the perimeter. >> >> Suggestions most welcome! >> >> >> >> To pick up on the suggestion of using the AAT as an example: in what >> way is the AAT a named graph? Surely it's a SKOS Concept Scheme (plus)? I >> think it would be impossible to give an example of a "well-known" named >> graph, for the reasons Simon has been explaining. >> >> >> Named Graphs are new, so none is really "well known", but I would regard a >> skosified AAT as a Named Graph, as well as all the RDF junks for LoD, once >> RDF >> regards any RDF file as a Named Graph. The only condition is, that two RDF >> Files with the same content and different URI are not regarded as being >> identical (owl:same_as). >> >> Best, >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> Richard >> >> >> On 25/07/2014 20:25, martin wrote: >> >> >> Dear Richard, >> >> At least in the implementations we use one triple can be in any >> number of graphs, even nested ones >> (SESAME, Virtuoso, OWLIM). >> >> The point Steve is making here that Named Graphs are the >> only way in which facts in a database can be >> described as explicit content of multiple(!) information objects >> which are described (creation etc.) in the >> same system. There is no other choice for implementing >> argumentation systems which explicitly describe >> premises and conclusions as propositions in the database. >> >> >> On 24/7/2014 11:03 πμ, Richard Light wrote: >> >> >> >> I must say that I'm not so sure that named graphs are >> going to be particularly useful for implementations of the CRM. As I >> understand it (and I don't claim to be an RDF expert), the idea of quads was >> invented so that "naked" RDF assertions could be given a "context". The >> problem I have always had with that idea is that you only get one shot at it >> (i.e. >> you can only assign one context to any given triple). >> >> Surely (a) we need to be able to express multiple >> contexts for statements made within the CRM, (b) we have already >> developed a rich enough use of RDF to allow us to do so. >> >> Richard >> >> >> On 24/07/2014 05:57, Simon Spero wrote: >> >> >> The AAT might work. >> I'm not entirely sure that named graphs are >> propositional objects as defined in the CRM, but I think the definition is >> loose >> enough. >> >> Named graphs are not graphs that are named; >> they are a tuple of an IRI (which is a name), and graph (which is the set of >> propositions). If the name is a proposition, it is not one in the graph it is >> associated with. >> >> If Propositional objects can include parts which >> are not propositions then there is no problem- though it would seem more >> natural to have information objects only part of which are propositional. >> That would be a bit too big a change this far >> down the road ; if named graphs can't fit directly, graphs themselves would; >> these could be part of named graphs. >> >> I am not sure if "The encoding structure known as a “named >> graph” also falls >> under this class, so that each “named graph” is an instance of >> an E73 >> Information Object." is the right way to say it. >> >> May be better "information encoded as named >> graphs may represent instances of E73 Information object >> including an explicit representation of contents". >> Since it is an encoding construct, it may represent other things >> as well. In a sense, >> it is trivial that any RDF File is an information object, but >> it is not >> trivial if a part of the content >> of an RDF File represents (,not "is",) an information object in >> its own right. >> I would rather put that at the end of the scope note as an >> implementation note. >> >> >> On Jul 24, 2014 12:15 AM, "Stephen Stead" >> <ste...@paveprime.com> wrote: >> >> >> Can you think of a named graph that >> would be sufficiently iconic to make a >> good example? >> Rgds >> SdS >> >> Stephen Stead >> Tel +44 20 8668 3075 >> <tel:%2B44%2020%208668%203075> >> Mob +44 7802 755 013 >> <tel:%2B44%207802%20755%20013> >> E-mail ste...@paveprime.com >> LinkedIn Profile >> http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig- >> boun...@ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of Øyvind Eide >> Sent: 23 July 2014 15:12 >> To: crm-sig >> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** >> Revision of scope note for E73 >> Information Object to specifically >> include named graphs >> >> Dear Steve, >> >> This sounds good to me. Do you think >> an example of a named graph should be >> added as well? >> >> Best, >> >> Øyvind >> >> On 18. juli 2014, at 08:44, Stephen >> Stead wrote: >> >> > Dear CRM-SIG >> > I would like to suggest the following >> revision to the scope note for E73 >> Information Object. Its intention is to >> specifically mention “named graphs” >> as being instances of E73 Information >> Object. As we look at implementation >> of the CRM it is becoming increasingly >> obvious that “named graphs” are going >> to be a particularly useful tool, it >> would >> therefore seem handy if we >> explicitly mentioned that they live in >> E73! >> > Best regards >> > SdS >> > >> > >> > Current Scope Note >> > E73 Information Object >> > Subclass of: E89 Propositional >> Object >> > E90 Symbolic Object >> > Superclass of: E29 Design or >> Procedure >> > E31 Document >> > E33 Linguistic Object >> > E36 Visual Item >> > >> > Scope note: This class >> comprises >> identifiable immaterial items, >> such as a poems, jokes, data sets, >> images, texts, multimedia objects, >> procedural prescriptions, computer >> program code, algorithm or mathematical >> formulae, that have an objectively >> recognizable structure and are documented >> as single units. >> > >> > An E73 Information Object does not >> depend on a specific physical carrier, >> which can include human memory, and >> it can exist on one or more carriers >> simultaneously. >> > Instances of E73 Information Object >> of a linguistic nature should be >> declared as instances of the E33 >> Linguistic Object subclass. Instances of >> E73 Information Object of a >> documentary nature should be declared as >> instances of the E31 Document subclass. >> Conceptual items such as types and >> classes are not instances of E73 >> Information Object, nor are ideas without a >> reproducible expression. >> > Examples: >> > § image BM000038850.JPG from the >> Clayton Herbarium in London § E. A. >> > Poe's "The Raven" >> > § the movie "The Seven Samurai" by >> Akira Kurosawa § the Maxwell >> > Equations >> > Properties: >> > >> > Revised Scope Note >> > >> > E73 Information Object >> > Subclass of: E89 Propositional >> Object >> > E90 Symbolic Object >> > Superclass of: E29 Design or >> Procedure >> > E31 Document >> > E33 Linguistic Object >> > E36 Visual Item >> > >> > Scope note: This class >> comprises >> identifiable immaterial items, >> such as a poems, jokes, data sets, >> images, texts, multimedia objects, >> procedural prescriptions, computer >> program code, algorithm or mathematical >> formulae, that have an objectively >> recognizable structure and are documented >> as single units. The encoding structure >> known as a “named graph” also falls >> under this class, so that each “named >> graph” is an instance of an E73 >> Information Object. >> > >> > An E73 Information Object does not >> depend on a specific physical carrier, >> which can include human memory, and >> it can exist on one or more carriers >> simultaneously. >> > Instances of E73 Information Object >> of a linguistic nature should be >> declared as instances of the E33 >> Linguistic Object subclass. Instances of >> E73 Information Object of a >> documentary nature should be declared as >> instances of the E31 Document subclass. >> Conceptual items such as types and >> classes are not instances of E73 >> Information Object, nor are ideas without a >> reproducible expression. >> > Examples: >> > § image BM000038850.JPG from the >> Clayton Herbarium in London § E. A. >> > Poe's "The Raven" >> > § the movie "The Seven Samurai" by >> Akira Kurosawa § the Maxwell >> > Equations >> > Properties: >> > >> > >> > Stephen Stead >> > Director >> > Paveprime Ltd >> > 35 Downs Court Rd >> > Purley, Surrey >> > UK, CR8 1BF >> > Tel +44 20 8668 3075 >> > Fax +44 20 8763 1739 >> > Mob +44 7802 755 013 >> > E-mail ste...@paveprime.com >> > LinkedIn Profile >> http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> > Crm-sig mailing list >> > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >> > >> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Crm-sig mailing list >> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >> >> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Crm-sig mailing list >> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >> >> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Crm-sig mailing list >> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm- >> sig >> >> >> -- >> Richard Light >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Crm-sig mailing list >> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >> >> >> >> -- >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 | >> Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 | >> | Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr | >> | >> Center for Cultural Informatics | >> Information Systems Laboratory | >> Institute of Computer Science | >> Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) | >> | >> N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, | >> GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece | >> | >> Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl | >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Crm-sig mailing list >> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >> >> >> -- >> Richard Light >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Crm-sig mailing list >> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >> >> >> >> -- >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 | >> Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 | >> | Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr | >> | >> Center for Cultural Informatics | >> Information Systems Laboratory | >> Institute of Computer Science | >> Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) | >> | >> N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, | >> GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece | >> | >> Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl | >> -------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 | Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 | | Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr | | Center for Cultural Informatics | Information Systems Laboratory | Institute of Computer Science | Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) | | N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, | GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece | | Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl | --------------------------------------------------------------
