90 likes | 280 Views
Semantics and Ontology. RDF and OWL. Contents. Present data Problems and limitations Ontology and OWL Semantics and RDF Perspectives and limitations. Data sources. File system (pure data) Program itself (variables, OOP ) Relational Database (SQL/PL) Service (WSDL+SOAP, RSS etc.)
E N D
Semantics and Ontology RDF and OWL
Contents • Present data • Problems and limitations • Ontology and OWL • Semantics and RDF • Perspectives and limitations
Data sources • File system (pure data) • Program itself (variables, OOP) • Relational Database (SQL/PL) • Service (WSDL+SOAP, RSS etc.) (permanent and from program point of view)
Problem • Program: • data persistency • Relational management limitation • Filesystem: • n:m linking (file in multiple dirs, except unix) • Parameter management (mp3 ID3)
Problem • Database: • Relational management limitation • Primitive search (no semantic thinking)SELECT * FROM people WHERE name LIKE ‘Artjom%’ • Service • software-specific • no semantic questioning
Ontology • How do we define real? • Subject, object, relationship Subject: spooncolor: metalliclength: Neo’s hand Image: kid’s face Relationship: Looks at Object: Neoartist: Keanu Reeves Robe: messiah-black
Semantics • Natural-like language. For machines to understand • Neolooks at the spoon • n3 RDF format:Neo :looksAt :Spoon. • XML RDF format<matrix:Neo><matrix:looksAtrdf:resource="http://spoonshop.com/#Spoon" /></matrix:Neo>
New search? SPARQL: SELECT ?name ?position WHERE { ?ship :locatedIn:UnitedStates. ?ship :hacks :theMatrix } Result: :Neo :messiah :Morpheus :leader
Drawbacks • Impossible to use for general google-like search • Very general • N3 triplet is not expressive enough • XML syntax is too verbose