[Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 Information Object to specifically include named graphs

martin martin at ics.forth.gr
Wed Jul 30 14:17:59 EEST 2014


Dear Simon,

On 29/7/2014 7:34 ??, Simon Spero wrote:
>
> 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.
>
This is indeed how I perceive the CRM and the next step in integrated 
knowledge management!

Belief values, of any kind, are orthogonal to propositions. Since real 
world science and scholarship is much
more subtle in belief value than formal logic, and the actual nature of  
conviction formation by humans is still an open research question, but 
empirically successful (otherwise we had no aeroplanes), a reasonable
scientific and scholarly information service must separate propositions 
from implicit truth values in the long term.

I see the near future as monitoring all information back to the evidence 
of knowledge it is grounded in, as a phenomenological approach, which 
models and implements what any good researcher so far should do anyhow,
but cannot in current information aggregation system.
>
> 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).
>
Yes! The implicit logic in RDF/RDFS is however minimal and categorical: 
subsumption and inheritance of properties. Applied to the concepts in 
the CRM only, we would not question these on a regular base. To overcome 
practically the intrinsic fuzziness of the concepts in the CRM, we 
normally adopt a "recall over precision" attitude in the definition, 
classification and querying (everything that "could be an E7 Activity" 
should be classified as an E7 Activity).

All other theories expressed in RDF do not need to be logically 
consistent in a CRM implementation (multiple fathers etc. ;-) ).
The use of OWL rules in a database is practically prohibitive: It 
inhibits data entry without adequate diagnostics
to the user about the reasons of failure. It prevents storing 
alternative opinions, one of the fundamenatl
requirements for CRM-based aggregation services.

Best,

Martin
> On Jul 29, 2014 12:06 AM, "Christian-Emil Smith Ore" 
> <c.e.s.ore at iln.uio.no <mailto:c.e.s.ore at 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-bounces at ics.forth.gr
>     <mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr>] On Behalf Of martin
>     >Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:35 PM
>     >To: crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto:crm-sig at 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"
>     ><steads at paveprime.com <mailto:steads at 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
>     steads at paveprime.com <mailto:steads at paveprime.com>
>     >                                       LinkedIn Profile
>     >http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads
>     >
>     >
>     >                                       -----Original Message-----
>     >                                       From: Crm-sig
>     [mailto:crm-sig- <mailto:crm-sig->
>     >bounces at ics.forth.gr <mailto:bounces at 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
>     steads at paveprime.com <mailto:steads at paveprime.com>
>     >                                       > LinkedIn Profile
>     >http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads
>     >                                       >
>     >                                       >
>     >_______________________________________________
>     >                                       > Crm-sig mailing list
>     >                                       > Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>     <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
>     >                                       >
>     >http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >       _______________________________________________
>     >                                       Crm-sig mailing list
>     > Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
>     >
>     > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >       _______________________________________________
>     >                                       Crm-sig mailing list
>     > Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
>     >
>     > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >       _______________________________________________
>     >                               Crm-sig mailing list
>     > Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
>     > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-
>     >sig
>     >
>     >
>     >                       --
>     >                       Richard Light
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >       _______________________________________________
>     >                       Crm-sig mailing list
>     > Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig at 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:
>     martin at ics.forth.gr <mailto:martin at 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 at ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
>     > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>     >
>     >
>     >       --
>     >       Richard Light
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >       _______________________________________________
>     >       Crm-sig mailing list
>     > Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig at 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: martin at ics.forth.gr
>     <mailto:martin at 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 at ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
>     http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at 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: martin at 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           |
--------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20140730/146a934f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list