underspecified knowledge modeling in rdf

Post on 11-May-2015

2.089 Views

Category:

Documents

1 Downloads

Preview:

Click to see full reader

TRANSCRIPT

Underspecified Knowledge Modeling in RDF

Fariz Darari

fadirra@gmail.com

1

LITERAL VS THING

2

Literal vs Thing

Suppose I want to model my hobbies, say Programming:

1st approach:

2nd approach:

3

Literal vs Thing So far so good, but what if I want to model that Programming

is actually a kind of Sports? (*) Then, the former approach can’t do the trick (because it’s a

literal and a literal can’t be the subject of a triple, at least in standard RDF).

The latter, fortunately, can be used to model it, by saying:

Thus, I’d say that the 1st approach is underspecified with respect to the requirement (*).

4

Literal vs Thing

5

See also: Literal vs Thing at answers.semanticweb.com

REIFICATION

6

Reification

Say, I want to model authorship. First, I model it like this:

7

Reification

Moreover, I want to model the authorship of another book, that has 3 authors:

8

Reification

So far so good, but what if I want to model the ranks of authors, say, my dad is the 1st author, my mom is the 2nd author and I, myself, is the last author of the book? (**)

Well, you can’t always get what you want, or..

9

Reification

I present you, reification:

and so on..

10

Reification

Thus, I’d say that the way I model the authorships of books via:

is underspecified with respect to the requirement (**).

11

Reification http://data.semanticweb.org/person/adila-alfa-krisnadhi/rdf

12

See also: Reification by W3C

WEAK ONTOLOGY

13

Weak Ontology

Suppose that my initial ontology is only like this:

such that it is used to say the friendships of people.

14

Weak Ontology

Suppose I wanna say that, Justin Bieber is my friend:

Good so far. But, what if I want to say, JB is not only my friend, instead, he is my close friend! (***)

Well, you can’t do that, unless..

15

Weak Ontology

I edit my ontology to become like:

Thus, I can happily model my friendship with JB as follows:

16

Weak Ontology

Thus, I’d say that my initial ontology is underspecified regarding the requirement (***).

17

Weak Ontology

18 See also: Upper Ontology on Wikipedia

top related