LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME Archives

BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  November 2014

BIBFRAME November 2014

Subject:

Re: Closed and Open Assumptions was [BIBFRAME] [Topic] Types

From:

"[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 9 Nov 2014 09:19:26 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (35 lines)

I'm more-or-less in agreement with everything you say below (although it seems to me that the superclasses of a type are static only when the set of types is static, without new knowledge becoming available, and the fact that "correct" and "bizarre" interpretations may both be present is still a tremendous barrier to developing practical applications), but the "meta-discussion" is really what's at stake, I think.

In other words, if Bibframe is a language for discussion and information exchange only amongst catalogers and their professional colleagues, my objections to requiring inference evaporate. In that situation, I'm all in favor of using all technological capabilities to the fullest. If, on the other hand, Bibframe is a language for publishing bibliographic information to the wild wide Web,
then Bibframe triples could be consumed by anyone and anything, and the assumption of inference (even given the points you make below) seems to me to be too much.

---
A. Soroka
The University of Virginia Library

On Nov 7, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Simon Spero <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On Nov 7, 2014 12:35 PM, "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > In some cases, it may be possible for Bibframe applications to do a _better_ interpretation if types are present or can be inferred, but it should never be the case that an application can make no sense or can only offer a bizarre or nonsensical interpretation of some Bibframe triples without typing information.
>
> I'm going to stay out of the meta-discussion and just make some technical remarks.
>
> 1. If a set of assertions where all entities are fully typed has a model, then removing an assertion does not eliminate the model ; it just allows for other models. So removing type information cannot leave *only* the bizarre models.
>
> 2. *Some* inferences for *some* axioms can be found extremely cheaply in *some* implementations. (Asterisks indicate bold, italic, comic sans, and blink).
>
> One example is inferring a type of an entity that is the subject (value) of a property with explicit simple domain (resp. range) statements, when querying a data store that is mapped from a relational database.
> In this situation, some type information comes straight from the mapping, so it can be done "for free" . This inferencing is sound but not complete.
> Of course, entities mapped from an rdb will usually have a type, though it may not be the one you want.
>
> Finding the superclasses given a type only needs to be done once. This does not find all the classes of an individual but it does a lot.
>
> 3. Restricted profiles of owl can perform some inference tasks in real time. Production quality databases using appropriate owl profiles operate at scale in mission critical applications.
>
> 4. Adding redundant assertions that could have been inferred cannot make a dataset wrong. It does give more places to add wrong data, but if they are added automatically then that is less of a concern.
>
> 5. If inferable assertions are added to a dataset in order to avoid end systems doing inference themselves, it is probably necessary to add all inferences. This approach is used by triple stores that compute inferences at load time, and can cause the dataset to become larger. Data compression can give high compression ratios here, but the receiver still has to deal with more assertions.
>
> Simon
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
July 2011
June 2011

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager