SIOC Post profile for "AI3:::Adaptive Information"
type: Document
description: A SIOC profile describes the structure and contents of a weblog in a machine readable form. For more information please refer to http://sioc-project.org/.
primary topic: Making Linked Data Reasonable using Description Logics, Part 3
generator agent: http://rdfs.org/sioc/wp-sioc.php

Making Linked Data Reasonable using Description Logics, Part 3
type: Post
has container: weblog
has creator: Mike Bergman
maker: Mike Bergman
created: 2009-02-19T03:20:45Z
content: Historical and Research Support for Splitting the TBox and ABox In Part 1 of this series, I advocated the placement of linked data in an ABox construct from description logics [1] based on a separation of concerns argument. In Part 2 of this series, I reinforced that argument from the perspective of the work to be done within a knowledge base. I came to these viewpoints independently. I do not have any special background in these disciplines; I am a recent researcher and practitioner in the field, perhaps akin to a gentleman natural scientist of the 1800s. As these ideas have formed, therefore, I have also attempted to see what some of the noted experts in the field have said and wrote. Like any other field, there is no common viewpoint or doctrine about these matters. But, there is considerable -- and historic -- support for this viewpoint of splitting the TBox and the ABox for many different reasons. To my knowledge, this viewpoint has yet to be consolidated and applied to linked data. Perhaps this series will help stimulate that discussion. A Bit of 'Ancient History' The first specific discussion of this matter I was able to discover (though I suspect it had been discussed in earlier internal forums or papers) was on the W3C's RDF logic mail lists in 2001. While only eight years ago, it does feel a bit like ancient history with regard to the development and understanding of semantic Web languages. The mail list topic was what role RDF should assume, at a formative point in the language's development. A possibly restricted scope for RDF akin to a relational database or even as an "ABox" was being discussed. (This restriction, of course, was dropped for the more open, free scope of the present RDF.) To help clarify these matters, Jérôme Euzenat first noted in a thread with Pat Hayes, who would later author the RDF semantics W3C standards document [2] two years hence, that: The TBox defines a terminology, i.e. assign terms (which are interpreted as sets) to names, w…
encoded: Historical and Research Support for Splitting the TBox and ABox In Part 1 of this series, I advocated the placement of linked data in an ABox construct from description logics [1] based on a separation of concerns argument. In Part 2 of this series, I reinforced that argument from the perspective of the work to be done within a knowledge base. I came to these viewpoints independently. I do not have any special background in these disciplines; I am a recent researcher and practitioner in the field, perhaps akin to a gentleman natural scientist of the 1800s. As these ideas have formed, therefore, I have also attempted to see what some of the noted experts in the field have said and wrote. Like any other field, there is no common viewpoint or doctrine about these matters. But, there is considerable — and historic — support for this viewpoint of splitting the TBox and the ABox for many different reasons. To my knowledge, this viewpoint has yet to be consolidated and applied to linked data. Perhaps this series will help stimulate that discussion. A Bit of ‘Ancient History’ The first specific discussion of this matter I was able to discover (though I suspect it had been discussed in earlier internal forums or papers) was on the W3C’s RDF logic mail lists in 2001. While only eight years ago, it does feel a bit like ancient history with regard to the development and understanding of semantic Web languages. The mail list topic was what role RDF should assume, at a formative point in the language’s development. A possibly restricted scope for RDF akin to a relational database or even as an “ABox” was being discussed. (This restriction, of course, was dropped for the more open, free scope of the present RDF.) To help clarify these matters, Jérôme Euzenat first noted in a thread with Pat Hayes, who would later author the RDF semantics W3C standards document [2] two years hence, that: The TBox defines a terminology, i.e. assign terms (which are interpreted as sets) to names, whi…
topic: Description Logics
topic: Linked Data
topic: Semantic Web
topic: Structured Dynamics
topic: Structured Web
topic: UMBEL
has reply: comment-50663
has reply: comment-50756
has reply: comment-51106
links to: Part 1
links to: linked data
links to: description logics
links to: [1]
links to: separation of concerns
links to: Part 2
links to: first noted
links to: [2]
links to: Ian Horrocks
links to: DAML+OIL
links to: OWL
links to: later in that thread
links to: [3]
links to: relational model
links to: first-order predicate logic
links to: [4]
links to: RDF Views
links to: now proposed
links to: [5]
links to: [6]
links to: [7]
links to: [8]
links to: coherent
links to: [9]
links to: [10]
links to: [11]
links to: [12]
links to: [13]
links to: P
links to: SWRL
links to: [14]
links to: SWSE
links to: DERI
links to: National University of Ireland
links to: VisiNav
links to: [16]
links to: [15]
links to: Billion Triples Challenge
links to: search engines
links to: Sindice
links to: [17]
links to: Sweet Tools
links to: Aperture
links to: LARQ
links to: Virtuoso
links to: Watson
links to: Zebra
links to: [18]
links to: 19
links to: OKKAM
links to: [20]
links to: [21]
links to: ReSIST
links to: [22]
links to: [23]
links to: uBio Taxonomic Name Server
links to: The Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole
links to: Structured Dynamics
links to: working definition
links to: rdf-mt
links to: course

Mike Bergman
type: User

Mike Bergman
type: Person

P
label: rotégé