If the propositions in a named graph are treated the same way that propositions in other propositional objects then the CRM need make no commitment as to their truth. Completely false "documents" that claimed to describe reality are still at the least information objects.
Also, to clarify: RDF and RDFS are based in classical logic, as is OWL, which is the description logic SROIQ(D). RDF triples are ground terms that, if accepted, are axioms; if there are logical inconsistencies this inconsistency will cause clashes (most OWL reasoners are tableau based). On Jul 29, 2014 12:06 AM, "Christian-Emil Smith Ore" <c.e.s....@iln.uio.no> 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. > > 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 >
