3 ms·
> 2-1. Modeling the Data World with "Nouns" and "Verbs" > Link type: The relationships between object types, supporting 1-to-1, 1-to-many, and many-to-many rel
by gaigalas 8mo ago
> 2-1. Modeling the Data World with "Nouns" and "Verbs"
> Link type: The relationships between object types, supporting 1-to-1, 1-to-many, and many-to-many relationships.
Seems incredibly naive in terms of symbolic representation of knowledge. Maybe I spent too much time with OWL.
- CGMthrowaway 8mo agoCan you say more? What is state of the art?
- gaigalas 8mo agoI've learned this stuff as a hobby, so take it with a grain of salt. I'm not a specialist. OWL 1, for example, has stuff like transitive properties (the classical example is A ancestorOf B, B ancestorOf C, therefore I can infer A ancestorOf C if I annotate ancestorOf as a transitive property). Union, equivalence, inversion, symmetries, cardinality. Those are all possible to represent symbolic in OWL ontologies. They're also neatly separated in different types (OWL Lite, OWL DL, OWL Full). OWL Lite and DL for example are proven to be decidable (you won't get some halt when doing inference, no matter what). I know there are plenty of database engines to store triples and graphs, and plenty of reasoners out there. I haven't studied OWL 2 yet or newer stuff like SHACL, but I know it's supposed to be even better.
- HillRat 8mo agoI find myself distinctly unimpressed by the idea that slapping a nice UI and some TS/SCI controls on top of a graph database — the latter being something that NSA did, with considerably more sophistication, years prior in a Neo4J fork — is some kind of brilliant conceptual moat. Graph DBs are useful for certain kinds of problems, which happen to map well to counterterror social mapping strategies, this is nothing particularly new or noteworthy.