Re: Inference for error checking [was Re: How to avoid that collections "break" relationships]
On 04/06/2014 09:07 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
Well, certainly, one could do this if one wanted to. However, is this a
useful thing to do, in general, particularly in the absence of
constructs that actually sanction the inference and particularly if the
checking is done in a context where there is no way of actually getting
the author to fix whatever problems are encountered?
I'll let others judge that. My goal in the example was simply to
demonstrate how it *could* be useful.
My feelings are that if you really want to do this, then the place to do
it is during data entry or data importation.
Sure, it's certainly best to do error checking as early as possible, but
often there is still some value in doing it later as well. Maybe the
data users can contact the data publishers and alert them to a potential
problem? But like I say, I'll let others judge its usefulness. I don't
have a strong opinion on that.
David
peter
On 04/03/2014 03:12 PM, David Booth wrote:
First of all, my sincere apologies to Pat, Peter and the rest of the
readership for totally botching my last example, writing "domain" when
I meant "range" *and* explaining it wrong. Sorry for all the
confusion it caused!
I was simply trying to demonstrate how a schema:domainIncludes
assertion could be useful for error checking even if it had no
formal entailments, by making selective use of the CWA. I'll
try again.
Suppose we are given these RDF statements, in which the author
*may* have made a typo, writing ddd instead of ccc as the rdf:type
of x:
x ppp y . # Triple A
x rdf:type ddd .# Triple B
ppp schema:domainIncludes ccc. # Triple C
As given, these statements are consistent, so a reasoner
will not detect a problem. Indeed, they may or may
not be what the author intended. If the author later
added the statement:
ccc owl:equivalentClass ddd . # Triple E
then ddd probably was what the author intended
in triple B. OTOH if the author later added:
ccc owl:disjointWith ddd . # Triple F
then ddd probably was not what the author intended
in triple B.
However, thus far we are only given triples {A,B,C}
above, and an error checker wishes
to check for *potential* typos by applying the rule:
For all subgraphs of the form
{ x ppp y .
ppp schema:domainIncludes ccc . }
check whether
{ x rdf:type ccc . }
is *provably* true. If not, then fail the
error check. If all such subgraphs pass, then
the error check as a whole passes.
Under the OWA, the requirement:
{ x rdf:type ccc . }
is neither provably true nor provably false given
graph {A,B,C}. But under the CWA it is
considered false, because it is not provably true.
This is how the schema:domainIncludes can be
useful for error checking even if it has no formal
entailments: it tells the error checker which
cases to check.
I hope that now makes more sense. Again, sorry to
have screwed up my example so badly last time, and
I hope I've got it right this time. :)
David
On 04/02/2014 11:42 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Mar 31, 2014, at 10:31 AM, David Booth wrote:
On 03/30/2014 03:13 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
[ , . . ]
What follows from knowing that
ppp schema:domainIncludes ccc . ?
Suppose you know this and you also know that
x ppp y .
Can you infer x rdf:type ccc? I presume not, since the domain might
include other stuff outside ccc. So, what *can* be inferred about the
relationship between x and ccc ? As far as I can see, nothing can be
inferred. If I am wrong, please enlighten me. But if I am right, what
possible utility is there in even making a schema:domainIncludes
assertion?
If "inference" is too strong, let me weaken my question: what
possible utility **in any way whatsoever** is provided by knowing
that schema:domainIncludes holds between ppp and ccc? What software
can do what with this, that it could not do as well without this?
I think I can answer this question quite easily, as I have seen it
come up before in discussions of logic.
...
Note that this categorization typically relies on making a closed
world assumption (CWA), which is common for an application to make
for a particular purpose -- especially error checking.
Yes, of course. If you make the CWA with the information you have, then
ppp schema:domainIncludes ccc .
has exactly the same entailments as
ppp rdfs:domain ccc .
has in RDFS without the CWA. But that, of course, begs the question.
If you are going to rely on the CWA, then (a) you are violating the
basic assumptions of all Web notations and (b) you are using a
fundamentally different semantics. And see below.
None of this has anything to do with a distinction between entailment
and error checking, by the way. Your hypothetical three-way
classification task uses the same meanings of the RDF as any other
entailment task would.
In this example, let us suppose that to pass, the object of every
predicate must be in the "Known Domai
Re: Inference for error checking [was Re: How to avoid that collections "break" relationships]
Well, certainly, one could do this if one wanted to. However, is this a
useful thing to do, in general, particularly in the absence of constructs that
actually sanction the inferenceand particularly if the checking is done in a
context where there is no way of actually getting the author to fix whatever
problems are encountered?
My feelings are that if you really want to do this, then the place to do it
isduring data entry or data importation.
peter
On 04/03/2014 03:12 PM, David Booth wrote:
First of all, my sincere apologies to Pat, Peter and the rest of the
readership for totally botching my last example, writing "domain" when
I meant "range" *and* explaining it wrong. Sorry for all the confusion it
caused!
I was simply trying to demonstrate how a schema:domainIncludes
assertion could be useful for error checking even if it had no
formal entailments, by making selective use of the CWA. I'll
try again.
Suppose we are given these RDF statements, in which the author
*may* have made a typo, writing ddd instead of ccc as the rdf:type
of x:
x ppp y . # Triple A
x rdf:type ddd .# Triple B
ppp schema:domainIncludes ccc. # Triple C
As given, these statements are consistent, so a reasoner
will not detect a problem. Indeed, they may or may
not be what the author intended. If the author later
added the statement:
ccc owl:equivalentClass ddd . # Triple E
then ddd probably was what the author intended
in triple B. OTOH if the author later added:
ccc owl:disjointWith ddd . # Triple F
then ddd probably was not what the author intended
in triple B.
However, thus far we are only given triples {A,B,C}
above, and an error checker wishes
to check for *potential* typos by applying the rule:
For all subgraphs of the form
{ x ppp y .
ppp schema:domainIncludes ccc . }
check whether
{ x rdf:type ccc . }
is *provably* true. If not, then fail the
error check. If all such subgraphs pass, then
the error check as a whole passes.
Under the OWA, the requirement:
{ x rdf:type ccc . }
is neither provably true nor provably false given
graph {A,B,C}. But under the CWA it is
considered false, because it is not provably true.
This is how the schema:domainIncludes can be
useful for error checking even if it has no formal
entailments: it tells the error checker which
cases to check.
I hope that now makes more sense. Again, sorry to
have screwed up my example so badly last time, and
I hope I've got it right this time. :)
David
On 04/02/2014 11:42 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Mar 31, 2014, at 10:31 AM, David Booth wrote:
On 03/30/2014 03:13 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
[ , . . ]
What follows from knowing that
ppp schema:domainIncludes ccc . ?
Suppose you know this and you also know that
x ppp y .
Can you infer x rdf:type ccc? I presume not, since the domain might
include other stuff outside ccc. So, what *can* be inferred about the
relationship between x and ccc ? As far as I can see, nothing can be
inferred. If I am wrong, please enlighten me. But if I am right, what
possible utility is there in even making a schema:domainIncludes
assertion?
If "inference" is too strong, let me weaken my question: what
possible utility **in any way whatsoever** is provided by knowing
that schema:domainIncludes holds between ppp and ccc? What software
can do what with this, that it could not do as well without this?
I think I can answer this question quite easily, as I have seen it come up
before in discussions of logic.
...
Note that this categorization typically relies on making a closed world
assumption (CWA), which is common for an application to make for a
particular purpose -- especially error checking.
Yes, of course. If you make the CWA with the information you have, then
ppp schema:domainIncludes ccc .
has exactly the same entailments as
ppp rdfs:domain ccc .
has in RDFS without the CWA. But that, of course, begs the question. If you
are going to rely on the CWA, then (a) you are violating the basic
assumptions of all Web notations and (b) you are using a fundamentally
different semantics. And see below.
None of this has anything to do with a distinction between entailment and
error checking, by the way. Your hypothetical three-way classification task
uses the same meanings of the RDF as any other entailment task would.
In this example, let us suppose that to pass, the object of every
predicate must be in the "Known Domain" of that predicate, where the Known
Domain is the union of all declared schema:domainIncludes classes for that
predicate. (Note the CWA here.)
Given this error checking objective, if a system is given the facts:
x ppp y .
y a ccc .
then without also knowing that "ppp schema:domainIncludes ccc", the system
may not be able to determine that these statements should be considered
Passed or Failed: the result may be Indeterminate. But if the system is
also told that
TPNC 2014: 1st call for papers
*To be removed from our mailing list, please respond to this message with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line* ** 3rd INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF NATURAL COMPUTING TPNC 2014 Granada, Spain December 9-11, 2014 Organized by: Soft Computing and Intelligent Information Systems (SCI2S) University of Granada Research Group on Mathematical Linguistics (GRLMC) Rovira i Virgili University http://grammars.grlmc.com/tpnc2014/ ** AIMS: TPNC is a conference series intending to cover the wide spectrum of computational principles, models and techniques inspired by information processing in nature. TPNC 2014 will reserve significant room for young scholars at the beginning of their career. It aims at attracting contributions to nature-inspired models of computation, synthesizing nature by means of computation, nature-inspired materials, and information processing in nature. VENUE: TPNC 2014 will take place in Granada, in the region of Andalucía, to the south of Spain. The city is the seat of a rich Islamic historical legacy, including the Moorish citadel and palace called Alhambra. SCOPE: Topics of either theoretical, experimental, or applied interest include, but are not limited to: * Nature-inspired models of computation: - amorphous computing - cellular automata - chaos and dynamical systems based computing - evolutionary computing - membrane computing - neural computing - optical computing - swarm intelligence * Synthesizing nature by means of computation: - artificial chemistry - artificial immune systems - artificial life * Nature-inspired materials: - computing with DNA - nanocomputing - physarum computing - quantum computing and quantum information - reaction-diffusion computing * Information processing in nature: - developmental systems - fractal geometry - gene assembly in unicellular organisms - rough/fuzzy computing in nature - synthetic biology - systems biology * Applications of natural computing to: algorithms, bioinformatics, control, cryptography, design, economics, graphics, hardware, learning, logistics, optimization, pattern recognition, programming, robotics, telecommunications etc. A flexible "theory to/from practice" approach would be the perfect focus for the expected contributions. STRUCTURE: TPNC 2014 will consist of: - invited talks - invited tutorials - peer-reviewed contributions INVITED SPEAKERS: tba PROGRAMME COMMITTEE: Hussein A. Abbass (Canberra, AU) Uwe Aickelin (Nottingham, UK) Thomas Bäck (Leiden, NL) Christian Blum (San Sebastián, ES) Jinde Cao (Nanjing, CN) Vladimir Cherkassky (Minneapolis, US) Sung-Bae Cho (Seoul, KR) Andries P. Engelbrecht (Pretoria, ZA) Inman Harvey (Brighton, UK) Francisco Herrera (Granada, ES) Tzung-Pei Hong (Kaohsiung, TW) Yaochu Jin (Guildford, UK) Soo-Young Lee (Daejeon, KR) Derong Liu (Chicago, US) Manuel Lozano (Granada, ES) Carlos Martín-Vide (Tarragona, ES, chair) Risto Miikkulainen (Austin, US) Frank Neumann (Adelaide, AU) Leandro Nunes de Castro (São Paulo, BR) Erkki Oja (Aalto, FI) Marc Schoenauer (Orsay, FR) Biplab Kumar Sikdar (Shibpur, IN) Darko Stefanovic (Albuquerque, US) Umberto Straccia (Pisa, IT) Thomas Stützle (Brussels, BE) Ponnuthurai N. Suganthan (Singapore, SG) Johan Suykens (Leuven, BE) El-Ghazali Talbi (Lille, FR) Jon Timmis (York, UK) Michael N. Vrahatis (Patras, GR) Xin Yao (Birmingham, UK) ORGANIZING COMMITTEE: Adrian Horia Dediu (Tarragona) Carlos García-Martínez (Córdoba) Carlos Martín-Vide (Tarragona, co-chair) Manuel Lozano (Granada, co-chair) Francisco Javier Rodríguez (Granada) Florentina Lilica Voicu (Tarragona) SUBMISSIONS: Authors are invited to submit non-anonymized papers in English presenting original and unpublished research. Papers should not exceed 12 single-spaced pages (including eventual appendices) and should be prepared according to the standard format for the Springer Verlag's LNCS series (see http://www.springer.com/computer/lncs?SGWID=0-164-6-793341-0). Submissions have to be uploaded to: https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=tpnc2014 PUBLICATIONS: A volume of proceedings published by Springer in the LNCS series will be available by the time of the conference. A special issue of a major journal will be later published containing peer-reviewed extended versions of some of the papers contributed to the conference. Submissions to it will be by invitation. REGISTRATION: The period for registration is open from April 5 to December 9, 2014. The registration form can be found at: http://grammars.grlmc.com/tpnc2014/Registration.php DEADLINES: Paper submission: July 17, 2014 (23:59h, CET) Notification of paper acceptance or rejection: August 24, 2014 Final version of the paper for the LNCS proceedings: September 7, 2014 Early registration: September 7, 2014 Late registr
