On Jul 29, 2014 12:06 AM, "Christian-Emil Smith Ore"
<c.e.s....@iln.uio.no <mailto: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
<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 <mailto: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 ??, 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 ??, 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 <mailto: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>
><tel:%2B44%2020%208668%203075>
> Mob +44 7802 755 013
<tel:%2B44%207802%20755%20013>
><tel:%2B44%207802%20755%20013>
> E-mail
ste...@paveprime.com <mailto:ste...@paveprime.com>
> LinkedIn Profile
>http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Crm-sig
[mailto:crm-sig- <mailto:crm-sig->
>boun...@ics.forth.gr <mailto: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 <mailto:ste...@paveprime.com>
> > LinkedIn Profile
>http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads
> >
> >
>_______________________________________________
> > Crm-sig mailing list
> > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
<mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
> >
>http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
>
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
>
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto: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 <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
>
>
> --
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Martin Doerr |
Vox:+30(2810)391625 <tel:%2B30%282810%29391625> |
> Research Director |
Fax:+30(2810)391638 <tel:%2B30%282810%29391638> |
> | Email:
mar...@ics.forth.gr <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
>
>
>--
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625
<tel:%2B30%282810%29391625> |
> Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638
<tel:%2B30%282810%29391638> |
> | Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr
<mailto: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 <mailto: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
