Timothy, I don't feel qualified to comment on this matter in any detail but here are a couple thoughts about your personhood/human rights ontology,
for whatever they may be worth:
- Some folks may object to your use of the word "brotherhood" in the description of the ontology.
- Human rights cannot be usefully separated from responsibilities.
- This ngram hightlights the problem:
I personally am not so interested in how people describe (identify) themselves or to what they believe they are "entitled" simply because they exist as a human "thing" as I care about:
a) what they plan to do with their lives,b) what they are actually able to accomplish, andc) how it impacts others.
That pretty well sums up why I care more about StratML than RDF/OWL. On the other hand, of course, I am always open to learning more about how RDF/OWL might be use to support my interests. For example, I'd love to see someone demonstrate the benefits of its usage as applied to the >5K files in the StratML collection.
The vision of the StratML standard is: A worldwide web of intentions, stakeholders, and results.
Another way of characterizing it is as the *Strategic* Semantic Web -- linkages not merely for their own theoretical sake but in support of the practical realization of human objectives.
From: Timothy Holborn <timothy...@gmail.com>
To: Paola Di Maio <paolad...@googlemail.com>
Cc: W3C AIKR CG <publi...@w3.org>; public-cogai <public...@w3.org>
Sent: Wed, Sep 7, 2022 11:16 am
Subject: Re: Ditch OWL:Thing = god? SemWeb 2.0
How is W3C not the international standards body for commercial infrastructure of the use of 'things', from a technical standpoint.
On Thu, 8 Sept 2022, 1:13 am Timothy Holborn, <timothy...@gmail.com> wrote:oh, overall; whilst the existing modalities are so very well supported - does that give rise to ensuring other modalities are made unable to emerge?in english, at least, i guess..
On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 01:12, Timothy Holborn <timothy...@gmail.com> wrote:I've been out tonight, so might not be the best idea to distil the complex concept into a single line... but..are you nothing more than a thing?Should we promote this ideology in academic curriculum materials for all young people - so they know they're place (/rights, essentially) in the world...?Timothy Holborn.Timothy Holborn.
On Wed, 7 Sept 2022 at 17:17, Paola Di Maio <paola....@gmail.com> wrote:Timothy, I cc the AI KR CG list, because OWL is described as KRMy understanding (Not an OWL expert myself) is that owl:thing is necessary due to the choice of OWL being based on logical hierarchy, whreby thing is an abstraction for the upmost entity in the upmost categoryand if it makes you feel better, you could probably mask it with another label (such as owl:anything) without breaking itI dont think there is a case for ditching or breaking OWL, but rather for understanding itse limitations, there is some good reading pointing to possible workaroundsYou could of course look further and start thinking beyond OWLthis seems a good read in that direction
Empowering OWL with Overriding Inheritance, Conflict ...https://www.aaai.org › Papers › Symposia › Springby S Hosain · 2009 · Cited by 9 — ing multiple different types of inheritance with overrid- ing, and non-monotonic reasoningThe popularity of OWL for knowledge representation
in the Semantic Web applications makes it an attractive
platform. Although OWL supports some form
of object-oriented features for knowledge structuring
and maintenance, it is significantly weak in capturing
most essential object-oriented features such as single
and multiple inheritance, default class values, methods,
overriding and encapsulation in their true spirits.
It is also weak in extending reasoning support for intelligent
knowledge processing. Such features are becoming
increasingly essential in applications such as
social networks, e-commerce and knowledge rich ontology
for Life Sciences. In this paper, we propose
an extension of OWL toward a more powerful knowledge
structuring language, called OWL++, by supporting
multiple different types of inheritance with overriding,
and non-monotonic reasoning capabilities within
OWL. We demonstrate OWL++’s computability and
implementability by presenting a translational semantics
of OWL++ to OWL, for which we have robust execution
engines while for the reasoning component of
OWL++ we rely on Jena to support rules in OWL.Also I hear SHACL could be useful used in conjunction with OWLThere is tons of stuff be the looked up I think, as starting points for workaroundsand beyond OWL futuresLet us know if you have the chance of conducting further analysisand send us a summary of your findingsPDM
On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 1:51 PM Timothy Holborn <timothy...@gmail.com> wrote:Hi all,I'm still befuddled as to whether my analysis has merit or if there's something basic I'm missing.I noted a concept sometime ago about "human centric web" or "human centric AI", etc. (Early credentials CG work).Ontology Dev environments like protege use https://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl therefore anything modelled after it is a subclass of owl:thingI started on a personhood ontologyYet, now I'm trying to do some modelling for consciousness & various aspects relating to human agency, where the idea of structuring it all as a subclass of owl:thing, churns my stomach.I'm thinking about forming a broader upper ontology, and thereafter the implications.I'm also considerate of DIDs, which, from my point of view was always about ontologies on DLTs (particularly commons), understanding - making tools, isn't necessarily about a particular usecase / implementation structure.So, thinking is; if there's a time to break owl:thing (providing diversity) perhaps you hat time is now?Or am I missing something simple / fundamental, etc.The underlying consideration is impacted by modalities, whereby there may be a lack of diverse options available; if the tools aren't present to do it, distorting the wave function, via "things", perhaps unnecessarily / impactfully, imo.Timothy Holborn.