Download - Underspecified Knowledge Modeling in RDF
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
