Re: Relationships, context WAS: (SWAG: Re: & kindaLike that too) AND(RE: &)

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Hi Manos,

I need a clarification. See below.

At 11:02 AM +0300 8/28/01, Manos Batsis wrote:
>I hope you guys don't mind about joining the two threads :-)
>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Sean B. Palmer [mailto:sean@mysterylights.com]
>
>[...] At the moment, you can't introduce cyclic
>>  properties/classes (RDF Schema won't allow it), but once
>>  those are allowed
>>  (it's on the RDFS issues list), it'll allow RDFS to imply
>>  equivalences in a
>>  way that will baffle some non-logicians. Asserting that:-
>>
>>     :x rdfs:subPropertyOf :y .
>>     :y rdfs:subPropertyOf :z .
>>     :z rdfs:subPropertyOf :x .
>>
>
>Very glad you provided this example. At first I went like "Whoa. How am
>I gonna use that?" but it may fit perfectly with a question I wanted to
>ask.
>I was wondering if I can use (or implement something like) what I
>thought of as "Property context". For example, I would like to state
>that
>
>:x synonumTo :y .

This is neither meant as joke or criticism, because there's a couple 
of very good conditional concepts in here, so: Is this just a typo, 
meaning to actually state:

:x synonymTo:y ?

or is the term synonum actually a contraction of synonym and sum so 
that it is a coined mathematical term meaning an equivalent numerical 
value comparing say a percent and a fraction that yields an 
irrational or unique quotient? This would be an odd place to 
introduce a new math concept, but the concept has several useful 
purposes i could think of.

Ciao,
Rex

>
>but using a higher resource as a context (OR, make it conditional).
>Further more, I would like to extend this to have the ability to build
>upon the model on document level, that is, having all my schemas etc in
>a taxonomy repository or something, but also have the ability to easily
>build upon the taxonomy models in document level, making them reusable
>instead of static. This resembles human behavior, as all of our
>thoughts, feelings, judgment etc. are always in a rather liquid state
>based on time/situation etc.
>Is something like this easy/currently implemented?
>
>
>>  Anyway, what was I talking about? Oh yes, it's quite
>>  difficult to define
>>  what a "non-hierarchial relationship" is, because all triples
>>  are miniature
>>  hierarchies.
>
>I don't really see it that way. The only thing a triple gives in my head
>is a dimension in a virtual space (something I don't even find relevant
>but since we are talking about models...). Also, different hierarchies
>can be build with the same statements, depending from the starting point
>(your cyclic statements above provide an excellent example) so the
>relationship as a whole cannot be resembled as one hierarchy.
>
>
>>  When we link them together, they form a Web,
>>  which transcends
>>  the triples, much like the triples transcend the nodes.
>
>Yes.
>
>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Aaron Swartz [mailto:aswartz@swartzfam.com]
>
>>
>>  On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 08:48  PM, Sean B. Palmer wrote:
>>
>>  > I'm not too keen on "kindaLike" because all it does is state
>>  > that there is
>>  > some level of equivalence between a subject and an object, but
>>  > it doesn't
>>  > state the level of that equivalence. That might be useful to a
>>  > human (which
>>  > is why I used it in the prose), but it's not going to be useful to a
>>  > machine, which is what the goal of the Semantic Web is. To get
>>  > machines to
>>  > do all of the dirty work.
>>
>>  Actually that's not completely true. Montonic systems (or is it
>>  non-monotonic... I can never remember) may use kindaLike to make
>>  tentative inferences. It's rather useful for a large number of
>>  applications.
>>
>>  "I see you're buying this book... these other books are kinda
>>  like that one, and may also be interesting to you."
>
>I think that it is rather a subject of using the ontology properly (as
>html was used improperly). This "kindaLike" would be an ideal solution
>for implementing dynamic navigation systems (a problem I'm facing right
>now) OR, dynamic resolution of relationships by machines (if you
>establish factors and make the property meaning dependent on them, such
>as the "context" I am asking for above).
>
>Kindest regards,
>
>Manos
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>


-- 
Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com
Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request