[PragmaticWeb] Which semantics?

[Martynas Jusevičius]

Sebastian,

nothing is inferred magically. However if you add explicit rules to
your domain model, you can get both equivalence and ordering.

Have you looked at the RDF, RDFS, OWL, SPARQL specifications? Here are
some pointers:
https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-primer/#Equality_and_Inequality_of_Individuals
https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_collectionvocab

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug at gmail.com> wrote:
> OK. But sorry again for my lack of knowledge but does this mean that
> 'semantic' inference of the kind of 'inferring' that:
>
> http://somedomain.net/people/John
> (is the same as)
> http://anotherdomain.com/staff/Juan
>
> is not possible without resorting in previous knowledge or dictionaries or,
> even worst, NLP over those URIs? Not even to mention 'inferring' identity
> between 'The capital of France' and 'Paris' or 100cm / 1meter.
>
> Another kind of inference that simply concatenating datasets just not solve
> is that of 'ordering':
>
> Joe takes his car out.
> Joe washes his car.
> Joe takes his car in.
>
> How if the statements comes in any order one could reason about the correct
> sequence. This will be indispensable for propositional like logic and
> inference.
>
> Best,
> Sebastián.
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 14, 2017 4:20 PM, "Martynas Jusevičius" <martynas at graphity.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> Sebastian,
>>
>> I think it is useful to think about the merge operation between datasets.
>>
>> Here I mean a "physical" merge, where records with the same
>> identifiers become augmented with more data, when multiple datasets
>> are merged together. A "logical", or "semantic" merge, with vocabulary
>> mappings etc., comes on top of that.
>>
>> So if you take the relational or XML models, there is no generic way
>> to do that. With RDF, there is: you simply concatenate the datasets,
>> because they have a stable structure (triples) and built-in global
>> identifiers (URIs).
>>
>> That said, you should try approaching things from another end: start
>> building a small but concrete solution and solve problems one by one,
>> instead of overthinking/reinventing the top-down architecture. Until
>> you do that, you will probably not get relevant advice on these
>> mailing lists.
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Sorry for me being so ignorant. But what could be called 'semantic' (in
>> > the
>> > sense of 'meaning', I suppose) for the current frameworks, at least the
>> > couple I know, available for ontologies of some kind if they could
>> > assert
>> > between their instances which statements and resources are equivalent
>> > (being
>> > them in a different language/encoding or different 'contextual' terms
>> > for
>> > the same subjects for example).
>> >
>> > Another important lack of 'semantics' is ordering (temporal or
>> > whatsoever)
>> > where a statement or resource should be treated at least in relation to
>> > their previous or following elements.
>> >
>> > If my last posts where so blurry is because I try to address some of
>> > this
>> > issues, besides others, trying no to fall in the promise that adhering
>> > to
>> > one format will free us all of any interoperability hassles. Remember a
>> > similar promise from XML: "All we have to do is share DTDs and
>> > interoperate". I'll still trying to give the format a twist (RDF Quads)
>> > but
>> > I'll publish a Google Document open for comments.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Sebastián.
>> >