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

Christian-Emil Smith Ore c.e.s.ore at iln.uio.no
Thu Jul 31 10:03:06 EEST 2014


This is an interesting discussion, but somewhat distant from the question "Should the scope note for E73 Information Object be extend with an example showing that a named graph in rdf represents an instance of E73 Information Object?". In my view this is unproblematic.

Propositional objects and hence information objects are described in the CRM as: " This class comprises immaterial items, including but not limited to stories, plots, procedural prescriptions, algorithms, laws of physics or images that are, or represent in some sense, sets of propositions about real or imaginary things and that are documented as single units or serve as topic of discourse".  

Every instance of the class(es) represents a proposition/statement constructed by a human. (Thus it is not a Platonic object existing before and  independently of humans for those interested in the formalist<->Platonist debate) . Even in mathematics important proofs are not necessarily carried out in all formalistic details. The four colour problem was partly solved by computerized proofs, but nobody cared to proof the correctness of the programs.

RDF(S): In principle (and in some implementations) rdf triple stores are basically equal to a relational database with one table with three (four for named graphs?)  columns. With the old Z39.50 protocol added one would have a variant of linked data or semantic web. So there is nothing new here but a much more handy language to express pieces information and how they interlink. From a logician point of view RDF(S) is an implementation /interpretation technique on the model level. 

So what is meant by 'classic" in the "RDF(S) is based on classic logic"?.

C-E
 


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of martin
>Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 1:18 PM
>To: crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73
>Information Object to specifically include named graphs
>
>Dear Simon,
>
>On 29/7/2014 7:34 μμ, 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> 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] On
>Behalf Of martin
>		>Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:35 PM
>		>To: 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 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"
>		><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>
><tel:%2B44%2020%208668%203075>
>		>                                       Mob +44 7802 755 013
><tel:%2B44%207802%20755%20013>
>		><tel:%2B44%207802%20755%20013>
><tel:%2B44%207802%20755%20013>
>		>                                       E-mail steads at paveprime.com
>		>                                       LinkedIn Profile
>		>http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads
>		>
>		>
>		>                                       -----Original Message-----
>		>                                       From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-
>		>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
>		>                                       > LinkedIn Profile
>		>http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads
>		>                                       >
>		>                                       >
>
>	>_______________________________________________
>		>                                       > Crm-sig mailing list
>		>                                       > 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
>		>
>		>
>		>
>		>
>_______________________________________________
>		>                                       Crm-sig mailing list
>		>                                       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
>		>
>		>
>		>                       --
>		>                       Richard Light
>		>
>		>
>		>
>		>
>		>
>_______________________________________________
>		>                       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
><tel:%2B30%282810%29391625>         |
>		>                Research Director             |  Fax:+30(2810)391638
><tel:%2B30%282810%29391638>         |
>		>                                              |  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           |
>		>               --------------------------------------------------------------
>		>
>		>
>		>
>		>
>		>
>_______________________________________________
>		>               Crm-sig mailing list
>		>               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
>		>       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 |
>		>                                                             |
>		>               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
>		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           |
>--------------------------------------------------------------




More information about the Crm-sig mailing list