Is OWL/RDF typed or untyped? Should it be?
In his paper Knowledge Representation in Bicategories of Relations Evan Patterson shows how one can use the very elegant concept of ologs developed by David Spivak to explain how DataBases work, and by applying it to the category of relations Rel instead of Set, one gets something very close to RDF and description logics. One major difference is that one gets a system that is by default typed. See first three paragraphs of §7.
- How useful would a typed RDF be? Would it actually work?
- Can one retrofit RDF to be typed?
- Can one map the one to the other?
- Is RDF implicitly typed?
An interesting feature of RDF is that it allows one to reason with partial information. This is important because one does not know in advance what concepts an RDF document will contain nor which ontology it will need to use. One may first discover the data, then look for the ontology. So one may discover the types after the data. Indeed in science this can often be the case, where one is looking for concepts to explain the data.
Is there a mathematical way to reconcile typed and untyped that would allow for late discovery to types?