[seek-kr-sms] OBOE clarifications and questions

Kai Lin klin at sdsc.edu
Thu Jun 15 12:37:57 PDT 2006


Bertram,

I am not sure that I understand the context of the discussion. Actually
it is possible to specify N-ary relations in OWL or RDF. The OWL working
group in W3C has a formal document on this issue. You can find it at the
following URL:

    http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/#vocabulary  

Best,

-- Kai


-----Original Message-----
From: seek-kr-sms-bounces at ecoinformatics.org
[mailto:seek-kr-sms-bounces at ecoinformatics.org] On Behalf Of Bertram
Ludaescher
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 11:41 AM
To: Shawn Bowers
Cc: seek-kr-sms at ecoinformatics.org
Subject: Re: [seek-kr-sms] OBOE clarifications and questions


An addition to Shawn's answer to Matt's question for Josh, which Josh
had passed on to Shawn (now let's do an annotation/data lineage graph
for THAT! ;-)

Ontologies expressed in description logic have certain limitations in
expressiveness. This has to do w/ the fact that DLs are (almost
always) decidable first-order fragments of a special kind, i.e.,
"2-variable first-order logic". In particular, this means that any
individual statement (axiom) cannot--in general--refer to more than
two things at one time. Think of the two variables as pointers
(pebbles for logic game-theorists). You then make statements about two
domain elements. So in general you cannot make statements that require
inter-relating 3 or more individuals at the same time (or else you
might risk getting into undecidability land..)

On the other hand, there are other logic fragments, most notably
conjunctive queries CQ (aka Select-Project-Join queries) which are
able to refer to many individuals at the same time. But there you have
only existential quantification and no negation.

Mixing CQ and DL in general leads to undecidability. 

Shawn: we might want to look up the decision procedure for 2-FO (and
DLs in particular). 

Maybe there is some interesting research to be done in combining
CQ-like fragements with DL for specialized "alpha languages" that are
still decidable.

For now, my lips are sealed on any further comments, since this list
is googleable ;-)

Bertram



>>> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:14:38 -0700 (PDT)
>>> Shawn Bowers <sbowers at ucdavis.edu> wrote: 
SB> 
>>> 3) How to deal with multiple relations with integrity constraints?
For
>>> example, a 'site' table, and a 'tree measurement' table that has a
>>> foreign key into the site table.  Can we create annotations that
refer
>>> to attributes in both tables?
>>> 
>> 
>> I'm not 100% sure what you mean here.  I hope that we can do this.
Shawn 
>> might have a better sense for this question.
SB> 
SB> Matt, we have typically been defining a semantic annotation as a
mapping 
SB> from relation (database) instances to ontology instances. These
mappings 
SB> have signatures of the form (where a is the annotation)
SB> 
SB>    a: R1 x R2 x ... x Rn -> O1 x O2 x ... x Om
SB> 
SB> such that R1 to Rn are relations (tables) and O1 to Om are ontology 
SB> classes and properties.  For example, the annotation
SB> 
SB>   a: Site(x) & Tree(x, y) -> StudyArea(x) & TreeMeasure(y) &
measuredIn(y,x)
SB> 
SB> asserts that if x is a value in the Site table, and x,y are values
in the 
SB> Tree table, then x is an instance of a study area concept, y is an 
SB> instance of a tree measure concept, and there is a property
'measuredIn' 
SB> from y to x.
SB> 
SB> OBOE is only concerned with providing a useful vocabulary for the 
SB> right-hand side of these rules. Not for specifying the left-hand
side, and 
SB> not for specifying the annotation logic itself.

_______________________________________________
Seek-kr-sms mailing list
Seek-kr-sms at ecoinformatics.org
http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/mailman/listinfo/seek-kr-sm
s


More information about the Seek-kr-sms mailing list