[Developers] Reasoner?

[Robert Cook]

We know that we need to handle the geographic containment query problem.  The solution to that may or may not be generalizable (again, in a performant way.)

R

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Burns" <rictic at gmail.com>
To: "Robert Cook" <robert at metaweb.com>, "Freebase Developers" <developers at freebase.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2007 10:51:15 PM (GMT-0800) America/Los_Angeles
Subject: Re: [Developers] Reasoner?

Is the plan to support transitivity in a generalized way? Could someone assert that ancestry is transitive in such a way that a query asking "is Aaron Burr an ancestor of Jody Foster" would cause metaweb to walk up 'parent' links and give an answer? 



On 10/2/07 , Robert Cook < robert at metaweb.com > wrote: 

Just so you know, it's one of our goals to support transitive closure in particular on geographic containment and do it in a performant way. That is, your French University example below should work with little penalty in execution time. I don't currently have an ETA, but it's something we're serious about. 

R 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kavitha Srinivas" < ksrinivs at gmail.com > 
To: "Shawn Simister" < narphorium at gmail.com > 
Cc: developers at freebase.com 
Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2007 7:21:02 PM (GMT-0800) America/Los_Angeles 
Subject: Re: [Developers] Reasoner? 

Shawn has a good point. If you want to describe role hierarchies, or 
transitivity (e.g., locatedIn is transitive), then you can use OWL 
and use OWL reasoners to do this. 
Kavitha 

On Oct 2, 2007 , at 6:08 PM, Shawn Simister wrote: 

> Once the Freebase data is available as RDF it will be possible to 
> reason 
> about it using any of the existing RDF reasoners out there. I'm 
> working 
> on making this happen but I only have a little bit of free time 
> right now. 
> 
> Shawn 
> 
> Christoph Pingel wrote: 
>> Hello, 
>> 
>> I'm wondering if there is any artificial reasoner involved in 
>> freebase? My impression from looking into MQL is that queries only 
>> result in the explicit structures, not implicit ones. 
>> 
>> For example, can I ask for universities in France and get *all* 
>> French universities even if "contained by Lyon" or "contained by 
>> Toulouse" are the only location values that are there? 
>> 
>> Another case would be the research for people with a certain 
>> expertise that can be expressed in rules like 
>> "person knows about topic if 
>> person wrote book about topic 
>> or person wrote article about topic 
>> or person organized workshop about topic 
>> or person curated exposition about topic 
>> ". 
>> 
>> My second question is somewhat related. Perhaps it would make sense 
>> to have specialisation hierarchies (or inheritance chains) for 
>> relationships as well, not just for types. 
>> 
>> Looking at movies, for example, all the actors, the director etc. are 
>> all involved with a certain movie. From time to time, there are cases 
>> when it would be convenient to just ask for »people involved«... 
>> Hm, I'm not sure. Perhaps what I'm asking for is to have inheritance 
>> between compound value types... 
>> 
>> best regards, 
>> Christoph 
>> _______________________________________________ 
>> Developers mailing list 
>> Developers at freebase.com 
>> http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/developers 
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> Developers mailing list 
> Developers at freebase.com 
> http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/developers 

_______________________________________________ 
Developers mailing list 
Developers at freebase.com 
http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/developers 

_______________________________________________ 
Developers mailing list 
Developers at freebase.com 
http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/developers