Alberto Pepe edited A_simple_way_in.tex  over 11 years ago

Commit id: 2a661b080263c6ec29b32184b29d5073b8b4c688

deletions | additions      

       

A simple way in which the process can make a distinction between the various interpretations of \ttt{foaf:knows} is to intersect its history with the context of the relationships. In other words, the process can compare its history subgraph with the subgraph that constitutes a dilated triple. If $H \subseteq R$ is a graph defining the history of the process which includes the process' traversal through the scholarly aspects of Marko, then it is the case that $| H \cap T_x | > | H \cap T_y |$ as the process' scholarly perspective is more related to Marko and Alberto than it is to Marko and Carole. That is, the process' history $H$ has more triples in common with $T_x$ than with $T_y$. Thus, what the process means by \texttt{foaf:knows} is a ``scholarly" \texttt{foaf:knows}. This idea is diagrammed in Figure \ref{fig:contextual-process}, where $H$ has more in common with $T_x$ than with $T_y$, thus an intersection of these sets would yield a solution to the query (\texttt{lanl:marko}, \texttt{foaf:knows}, ?o) that included Alberto and not Carole.\footnote{$H$ Carole. (Note: $H$  need not be a dynamic context that is generated as a process moves through an RDF graph. $H$ can also be seen as a static, hardwired ``expectation" of what the process should perceive. For instance, $H$ could include ontological triples and known instance triples. In such cases, querying for such relationships as \texttt{foaf:knows}, \texttt{foaf:fundedBy}, \texttt{foaf:memberOf}, etc. would yield results related to $H$ -- biasing the results towards those relationships that are most representative of the process' expectations.} expectations.)  In other words, the history of the process ``blinds" the process in favor of interpreting its place in the graph from the scholarly angle. (Note: This notion is sometimes regarded as a ``reality tunnel" \cite{nerosoc:wilson1979,prome:wilson1983}.)