HyperKnowledge seminar 3

The local model: getting more formal

Entities and Relations (from seminar 2)

• Fragments (Symbols in context) are interpreted as Concept representations
• Concept representations are deemed equivalent
  • Concepts as equivalence class. (Materialized?)
• Concepts (representations?) are named using many Symbols
• In a Perspective, we can choose an unambiguous representative Symbol for a Concept
• Statements (complex concepts) reference Entities
• Concepts are separated by distinctions, joined by abstraction
• Refinement of successive concept representations

Immutables and identity

Recursivity means giving a locator to every entity at any level.

• Stable identifiers for immutable data
  • Aim to reuse IPLD work, but should accept other content-addressable ID

Topics, Raw Symbols and Structures

Enriched symbols

• Structures are meaningless without a schema
  • Think of JSON-LD context as an example
  • Likely to build on other schema languages
• Natural language strings are meaningless without a language identifier

Annotated Symbols and Structures

Symbols usually come from documents

• Document fragments follow Web Annotation standard
• Data fragments?

Fragments

DataFragments

Concept representations

• Concept representations can be any structure, following any schemas
• Concept representations are not Concepts, but concept proxies, as are names
• We want to express Claims and Definitions
• Concept representations form a DAG
• Interpretation and Distinction are Claims
• Note that concept representations are immutable

ConceptRepresentation

Mutability

• We allow arbitrary identifiers to name non-immutable topics.
  • URN, URL and LanguageSymbols are explicitly allowed
  • Such identifiers may be ambiguous, but that’s for the next slide
• Mutability can take the form of document locators or event sourcing
• It should be possible to translate between the two

Mutable topics

Perspectives

• Materialize a set of accepted claims as a Perspective
• Each ConceptRepresentation has a history of (accepted) Replacement proposals
• This gives rise to a tree of Replacements for any ConceptRepresentation
  • Replacements form a general graph globally, but accepted Replacements within a Perspective must form a tree
  • Forkpoints are materialized (locally?). They may correspond to a valid abstraction.
  • Leaves of that tree, and valid abstractions, are deemed valid concepts within that perspective.

Perspective

Concept equivalence

• Explicit equivalence relation
• Generates (perspective-local) materialized equivalence classes
  • Within a perspective, enforce coherence with Distinctions and Replacements
• Naming diversity

Concept equivalence