Martin,

Please explain why you think that this text is needed in the RDF implementation 
guidelines. To me, it seems quite generic, and doesn't offer specific guidance 
as to what implementors should do about the issue that their existing systems 
may be incapable of expressing certain RDF features. I think it would actually 
detract from the usefulness of the document, because it would confuse and 
puzzle the typical reader.  [Maybe we need to stop and think about who the 
'typical reader' would be, and what they would want from this document.]

Richard

On 05/12/2018 16:05, Martin Doerr wrote:

Dear All,

I propose this paragraph to be added to the implementation guidelines for RDFS:

"About implementing multiple Instantiation
Knowledge representation models and more generally semantic networks differ 
fundamentally in one aspect from data structures, such as XML, Relational 
database schemata and data structures in all programming languages, including 
the object-oriented one:

·       Knowledge representation starts with an item in the real world 
regardless its nature, assigns an identifier to it in order to be able to make 
assertions about it, and then accumulates statements (assertions, propositions) 
about it.

·       Data structures start with a set of templates, a set of foreseen kinds 
of statements dedicated to a particular category each (class, entity), to be 
filled in by a user.



Consequently, knowledge representation may assign multiple classes to a given 
identifier without any problem. The associated processing software will then 
allow for asserting for this identifier all properties applicable to each 
assigned class. This process is called “multiple instantiation. For instance, 
the “weapon” with all its characteristics may also be a “ceremonial object”.



A system based on data structures must create a different instance of the 
respective templates for each class an item belongs to. It may later the link 
the different instances describing aspects of the same thing, in order to 
simulate the mechanism. In particular the very successful “encapsulation 
principle” of object-oriented programming languages requires dedicated data 
structures and constitutes a fundamental mismatch with the Open-World modeling 
of semantic relationships (see, for instance Schnase 1993). Fundamental to 
semantic data integration are also superproperties, which are not provided by 
data structures either.



The CRM as ontology relies heavily on multiple instantiation: Classes that use 
to co-occur on things simultaneously “incidentally”, without being associated 
with properties only applicable to the combination of such classes, are not 
modelled individually as subclasses of multiple parent classes. The latter 
would be called “multiple IsA”. To avoid multiple IsA in such cases is an 
important normalization principle to keep the ontology very compact and 
unambiguous.



Most implementations on top of RDF still use RDF as if it were a fixed schema 
and repeat in the UI code all the schema. Therefore, the promise of RDF and 
other semantic models to be able to accommodate dynamically new properties 
often does not work. It is still as if they were using Relational systems. 
Generic XML editors do adapt already to the schema, but usually the rendering 
paradigms they employ, without additional parameters, are too poor for good UI 
code. One can however write code that reads the RDF schema used at run-time and 
that extends data entry and display by the actual properties found. This 
functionality is foreseen by SPARQL, but most programmers still do not 
appreciate the utility of querying the schema. Even if fixed templates are 
used, the data entry system should foresee the same thing to be described by 
multiple templates, relatively freely selectable by the user.



In the specification modules of mapping software used to transform data into a 
CRM-compatible form, care must be taken to foresee and allow the user to 
combine RDF classes systematically. It may be useful to develop tools for 
specific guidance that show users how a valid path from a given domain class to 
a certain range class can be created by using multiple instantiation (and, by 
the way, also by using subclasses of the domain class), such as combining E41 
Appellation with E33 Linguistic Object in order to reach E56 Language via P72 
has language.



In a local system, another workaround for multiple instantiation can be the 
creation of classes that replace all candidate cases for multiple instantiation 
by subclasses using multiple IsA. For good reasons, the compatibility with the 
CRM is defined at the import/export/query level and not at the system 
internals. Therefore, such internal workarounds do not affect the 
interoperability: Whereas the query compatibility of this solution with the 
standard is immediate, the respective import/export system simply needs to make 
the trivial replacements of the respective class combinations with their 
multiple IsA counterparts and vice-versa.



So, partially, problems with multiple instantiation are a question of 
programming practice. On the other side, it is also a question of user training 
and extended good practice. Users may provide feedback about frequent cases 
where multiple instantiation is used, in order to guide users to these 
modelling cases. These could systematically be entered into the CRM RDF 
implementation, without requiring the CRM standard itself to repeat them."

John L. Schnase, (1993). "Semantic Data Modelling of Hypermedia Associations", 
in: ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Vol.11,No.1, January 1993, p 45.

Comments welcome!

Best,


Martin

--
------------------------------------
 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

 Vox:+30(2810)391625
 Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
 Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl




_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig


--
Richard Light

Reply via email to