Re: [protege-user] [EXT] Modeling Beliefs in OWL?

Steve, good point. By fact I didn't mean to imply it is true, merely that
it is a state of the world that is possible. But I agree calling it a Fact
is misleading. I actually think in the previous work where I used this
model I called it a State. The reason I didn't use State is I want this to
be understandable to social scientists and I'm not sure they would know
this meaning of State. I also used the term Proposition in previous work
and I think that might be the best here but definitely not Fact. Another
option is Statement but that implies someone said it. I just looked up
Proposition on Wikipedia and I think that is the proper term rather than
Fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition Let me know if you
disagree, thanks for the feedback.

Michael

On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 1:35 PM Wartik, Steven P "Steve" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Michael,
>
>
>
> I am curious about your first approach. How do you adjudicate what
> individuals are members of class Fact? I hardly need point out the
> practical difficulties in this day and age. And for that matter, what does
> it mean for an individual to be a member of class Fact? Especially in the
> context of your Belief class. If *f* is a Fact, *b* is a Belief, and *b*
> hasFact *f*, then what’s the point of calling something a belief if *f*
> is accepted to be truth?
>
>
>
> On reflection, it seems to me that a member of class Fact is, in your
> interpretation, something that someone believes to be a fact, independent
> of whether or not it actually is a fact. Is that correct? If so, “Fact” is
> kind of a misleading name.
>
>
>
> The approach may get you into trouble if you try reasoning. I can see a
> knowledge graph simultaneously containing the following two beliefs:
>
>
>
>    1. Belief 1: Person 1 thinks the average global temperature has risen
>    1.5° since 1990.
>    2. Belief 2: Person 2 thinks the average global temperature has risen
>    0.5° since 1990.
>
>
>
> To express this according to your approach, you’re going to have pairs of
> triples independent of the beliefs:
>
>
>
>    1. Fact 1: The average global temperature has risen 1.5° since 1990.
>    2. Fact 2: The average global temperature has risen 0.5° since 1990.
>
>
>
> Because reasoners don’t know about your Belief class, they might choke on
> something like this. It’s hard to say without a full model. Just something
> to keep in mind as you proceed.
>
>
>
> Steve Wartik
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* protege-user <[email protected]> *On Behalf
> Of *Michael DeBellis
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2025 3:04 PM
> *To:* User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop <
> [email protected]>
> *Subject:* [EXT] [protege-user] Modeling Beliefs in OWL?
>
>
>
> *** This email originated outside of IDA. Please verify that you recognize
> the sender and know the content is safe before proceeding. ***
>
>
>
> I'm developing an ontology based on an informal model created by some
> social scientists to model Climate Obstruction and Green Washing. I'm
> starting with the Gist upper model (but to the extent I understand Gist, I
> think the following question is  bit more theoretical than what they
> typically model).
>
>
>
> One thing I want to model is beliefs. The problem of course is that since
> Gist is logical it can't handle axioms that contradict each other and
> different people believe contradictory things  I've thought of two ways to
> do it and I'm interested in any feedback people have.
>
>
>
> Also, while the eventual knowledge graph will be large (millions of
> triples at least) the size won't come from beliefs. E.g., I'm not going to
> need to model thousands of different belief systems. I'll be using
> individual people as examples and perhaps also groups of people (e.g., the
> goal of an Exxon PR program is to convince the AmericanConsumer that
> decreased use of fossil fuel will be bad for the economy). Both Person and
> Organization are subclasses of Agent and Agent is the domain for believes.
>
>
>
> Approach 1). Reified triples. Create a class called Fact. Create object
> properties hasSubject, hasPredicate, hasObject, where each property's
> domain is Fact and the range is undefined. Then a Class called Belief with
> an object property hasFact. A belief consists of one or more facts. So to
> model Michael thinks Cat1 is on Mat1 create a Fact (Cat1OnMat1) with
> subject = Cat1, Predicate = isOn and object = Mat1. Make a belief object
> that consists of this fact Cat1OnMat1Belief and an object property believes
> and the triple Michael believes Cat1OnMat1Belief. You can assert a Fact is
> true with a simple Python function or even just a sparql query that gets
> the triple values and asserts them.
>
>
>
> Issues: Have to pun all the values for hasPredicate since those need to be
> properties. I've had bad experiences when using lots of puns. Honestly, I'm
> not sure if the problems are from AllegroGraph, Protege or using them
> together (which I do all the time without problems except when I have lots
> of puns). I've never spent enough time to figure out what the specific
> problem(s) are because I found whatever was going wrong I could make it go
> away by using annotation properties and no puns...  actually another option
> would be to make hasPredicate an annotation rather than object property.
>
>
>
> Approach 2): Use named graphs and only do reasoning within each graph.
> This seems simpler. So for each Agent's beliefs we would just have a named
> graph called MichaelBeliefs, AlansBeliefs, etc.
>
>
>
> Issues: How to model the connection between an Agent and their Beliefs.
> Since I don't think OWL understands what a named graph is because its an
> RDF concept not a logical concept. I think I could create an annotation
> property that points from the Agent to each named graph.
>
>
>
> I was leaning toward 1 which I've done before (on a very small scale) but
> after talking to a colleague I'm leaning toward 2.
>
>
>
> Interested in any critique, feedback, other ideas and/or pointers to
> relevant papers.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Michael
>
> https://www.michaeldebellis.com/blog
> _______________________________________________
> protege-user mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
>

_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user