> On 20 Nov 2019, at 09:02, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Jan > > Thx for the extra input here. > Could there still be a case for owl full (actually as I see it (?): being no > restrictions on the use of RDF + added owl clauses) > Where there is no use of reasoners, say just for specification sake....(think > nta option 2 ...). > > Or would you say: if an owl reasoner cannot be applied, the semantics is > actually so poor that there is no other useful application too?”
To be clear, I think you mean the following: If a DL/Direct Semantics reasoner cannot be applied, then is the semantics of the model considered too poor for a useful application? Clearly, industry says No to that as a general question as there are FOL languages, models and tools, for example. WRT OWL itself, the RDF Semantics spec is a formal definition of what you’re calling OWL Full, so it’s semantics are clear. See https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-rdf-based-semantics/ However, there are clearly usage scenarios where the answer is Yes (e.g. if going beyond DL means the reasoner fails and your business app somehow depends on it working and that reasoner is the best tool available to you). There is no always-the-case answer to these questions, just like there’s no always-the-case when deciding between using a graph database, an RDB and a Big Data tool. Jan mentioned SHACL, and one of the best things about SHACL, and it’s predecessor SPIN, is that apps can make use of “rules” to make inferences that are not limited to a specific logic. You can even use a programming language underneath to do complex math and use that in your inferences. Holger’s also got a nice demo of using Machine Learning to infer business rules from a SHACL model and data, so we’re exploring lots of tools for inferring data as part of a knowledge graph-based environment. Cheers, David > > Thx Michel > > > > > > Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms > Senior Data Scientist > > T +31888663107 > M +31630381220 > E [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Location > <https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88!8m2!3d52.000788!4d4.376707> > > > <image001.gif> <http://www.tno.nl/> > This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are > not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are > requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no > liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it > and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the > electronic transmission of messages. > > > > > Van: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Namens Jan Voskuil > Verzonden: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 4:25 PM > Aan: TopBraid Suite Users <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Onderwerp: [topbraid-users] Re: combining owl and skos > > A very late after-burner (I am currently involved in similar discussions and > stumbled upon this thread by accident): > Have a look at Uschold's "Demystifying OWL". It is a good read, especially > the two pages on punning. > While there is little to add to what Irene and David have said, I think it is > important to stress that when people say things like "I have a set of > triples, and these imply OWL Full", what really is being said is that there > is a deep and serious problem with the model being used. OWL Full does not > solve these problems, nor does it cause interesting things to happen. It only > guides an OWL-inferencer around the underlying problems, so that it does not > break down. The original intention of the underlying model is not achieved, > however. Introspective tools will not behave as expected. Irene's example > about the BMW 240i is hard in any formal language, because of type theory > being counter-intuitive. There is nothing one can do about that. Instead of > trying to out-smart the semantics of RDF, it is most often better to bite the > bullet and solve the issue in the model itself --- and accept the added > complexity. > > On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 5:31:08 PM UTC+2, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote: > > In: > https://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/skos-and-owl/master.html > <https://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/skos-and-owl/master.html> > > its is said: > “ > To illustrate these patterns, let's start with the following semi-formal > conceptualisation: > ex:mountains rdf:type skos:Concept; > skos:prefLabel "Mountains"@en. > > ex:himalayas rdf:type skos:Concept; > skos:prefLabel "Himalayas"@en; > skos:broader ex:mountains. > > ex:everest rdf:type skos:Concept; > skos:prefLabel "Everest"@en; > skos:broader ex:himalayas. > Overlay SKOS with OWL > In this pattern, we use OWL to overlay additional semantics on the same > vocabulary, e.g. by adding the following triples: > ex:mountains rdf:type owl:Class. > > ex:himalayas rdf:type owl:Class; > rdfs:subClassOf ex:mountains. > > ex:everest rdf:type ex:himalayas. > If the two sets of triples are merged, then this pattern necessarily leads to > an OWL Full representation, because an instance of skos:Concept might also be > an instance of owl:Class. > > “ > > Is the red statement really true? And if yes, is it really an issue here? > > (maybe it was under owl1 but under owl2 not different?) > > thx for advice, Michel > > > > > Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms > Senior Data Scientist > > T +31888663107 > M +31630381220 > E <>[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Location > <https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88!8m2!3d52.000788!4d4.376707> > > > <http://www.tno.nl/> > This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are > not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are > requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no > liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it > and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the > electronic transmission of messages. > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TopBraid Suite Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/f0949410-8879-47a8-96a7-535938ec117b%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/f0949410-8879-47a8-96a7-535938ec117b%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TopBraid Suite Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/b8a57330f4cb4fe3bda600a863bf6407%40tno.nl > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/b8a57330f4cb4fe3bda600a863bf6407%40tno.nl?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. UK +44 (0) 7788 561308 US +1 (336) 283-0808 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/D243ECC7-47D3-4628-B8E2-CD95EC3A74C9%40topquadrant.com.
