[Crm-sig] RDFS, XML and more

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Thu Sep 9 23:18:26 EEST 2021

Sorry, I just forgot:

Of course we can provide guidelines and S/W how to query all names etc. 
We can hardly forbid CRM users to put appellations into rdfs:label.

So, how do this problem solved in OWL? Those of you opposing to the 
superproperty hack, how do you solve the query question?



On 9/9/2021 11:12 PM, Martin Doerr wrote:
> Dear Robert, Mark,
> Of course this is not elegant schema design. Unease is accepted, but 
> what are the alternatives??
> On 9/9/2021 10:30 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>> As expected, it entails the nonsense that the literal "fish"@en is an 
>> E1, E41, E90, etc. which is garbage caused by this pollution in the 
>> ontology, as literals cannot be the subject of triples.
> This is, in my eyes, not nonsense, but simply reality. The literal 
> "fish" is used as a name. Hence it is ontologically an E41. Following 
> the definition of E90, "fish"@en is also symbolic object, regardless 
> whether one distinguishes data objects and literals. Note, that the 
> definitions of the CRM are ontological, not syntactic in the first place.
> This is a classical problem of data integration, and why formal 
> ontologies were invented. Literature in the 1980ties discussed that 
> classes can be hidden in boolean values, strings, or be explicit 
> tables. There is an arbitrary decision of applications to name things 
> via labels, or via classes in RDF/OWL. SKOS exclusively names things 
> via labels.
> So, if one makes a knowledge base that commits to the CRM, I would 
> like to have a query that returns all names in the whole world I can 
> reach, regardless what encoding variant and KR paradigm is used. 
> Otherwise, SKOS names will not be appellations.
> Alternatively, we close our eyes, and hard code in data entry and 
> query that "fish" is used as Appellation, but just don't write it down.
> @en actually is equivalent to "has language" etc. With these hidden 
> properties RDFS itself violates the separation of Literals and data 
> objects.  It opens up a whole world of user-defined data objects 
> within Literals, with no logical connection to the data objects. This 
> is nothing than a bad later patch to a problem not initially 
> anticipated. How are these compatible with OWL reasoners?
> There is no elegant solution to providing an ontology that describes a 
> reality based on FOL to fitting it exactly with Schema languages.
> At least, this is how I perceive this problem, having seen enough 
> knowledge representation languages and information integration 
> literature from the eighties and implementations from the nineties on.
> For me, the question is completely practical: We have a CRM compatible 
> KB, a real platform. What is the simplest form that I get all names in 
> the KB back?  I have not seen a whole "RDF" world that my statement 
> label IsA P1 would turn upside down. Do you have one?
> Best,
> Martin
>> Hope that helps explain my unease!
>> Rob

  Dr. Martin Doerr
  Honorary Head of the
  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
  Email: martin at ics.forth.gr
  Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl

More information about the Crm-sig mailing list