report: review Q3

doc/report/applications.tex

@@ -191,34 +191,37 @@ implementations.
     argument for adding support directly to ULO is that ULO aims to be
     universal and as such should not be without algorithms. An
     argument for a separate ontology is that what we understand as ULO
-    data sets (Isabelle, Coq) exports already contain triplets from
+    data sets (Isabelle, Coq exports) already contain triplets from
     other ontologies (e.g.\ Dublin Core meta data~\cite{dcreport,
     dcowl}) and keeping concepts separate is not entirely
     unattractive in itself.
 
     \item \textbf{$\mathcal{Q}_3$ ``All areas of math that {Nicolas G.\
     de Bruijn} has worked in and his main contributions.''}  This query
-    is asking by works of a given author~$A$.  It also ask for their
+    is asking by works of a given author~$A$.  It also asks for their
     main contributions, e.g.\ what paragraphs or code~$A$ has authored.
 
     \textbf{Organizational Aspect} ULO has no concept of authors,
-    contributors dates and so on. Rather, the idea is to take advantage
-    of the Dublin Core project which provides an ontology for such
-    metadata~\cite{dcreport, dcowl}. For example, Dublin Core provides
-    us with the \texttt{dcterms:creator} predicate. Servicing this
-    query would mean looking for the creator~$A$ and then listing all
-    associated \texttt{dcterms:title} that~$A$ has worked on. For a
-    first working version, the exports managed by \emph{ulo-storage}
-    are enough to service this query.
-
-    As~$\mathcal{Q}_3$ is also asking for the main contributions
+    contributors, dates and so on. Rather, the idea is to take
+    advantage of the Dublin Core project which provides an ontology
+    for such metadata~\cite{dcreport, dcowl}. For example, Dublin Core
+    provides us with the \texttt{dcterms:creator} and
+    \texttt{dcterms:contributor} predicates. Servicing~$\mathcal{Q}_3$
+    requires us to look for creator~$A$ and then list all associated
+    \texttt{dcterms:title}s that they have worked on. Of course this
+    requires above authorship predicates to actually be in use. With
+    the Isabelle and Coq exports this was hardly the case; running
+    some experiments we found less than 15 unique contributors and
+    creators, raising suspicion that meat data is missing in the
+    original library files. Regardless, in theory ULO allows us to
+    query for objects ordered by authors.
+
+    Query $\mathcal{Q}_3$ is also asking for the main contributions
     of~$A$, that is those works that~$A$ authored that are the most
     important. Importance is a quality measure, simply sorting the
-    result by number of references might be a good start. Again, this
-    is something that should serviceable with just organizational
-    knowledge.
+    result by number of references might be a good start.
 
-    \textbf{Implementation} Search for contributions by a given author
+    \textbf{Implementation} A search for contributions by a given author
     can easily be formulated in {SPARQL}.
     \begin{lstlisting}
     PREFIX ulo: <https://mathhub.info/ulo#>
@@ -226,32 +229,37 @@ implementations.
 
     SELECT ?work
     WHERE {
-        ?work dcterms:contributor "John Smith" .
+        ?work dcterms:creator|dcterms:contributor "John Smith" .
     }
     GROUP BY ?work
     \end{lstlisting}
-    To get all main contributions, we rate each
-    individual \texttt{?work} by its number of \texttt{ulo:uses}
-    references. Extending the {SPARQL} query, we can query the database
-    for a ordered list of works, starting with the one that has the
-    most references.
+    To get the main contributions, we rate each individual
+    \texttt{?work} by its number of \texttt{ulo:uses}
+    references. Extending the {SPARQL} query above, we can query the
+    database for a ordered list of works, starting with the one that
+    has the most references.
     \begin{lstlisting}
     PREFIX ulo: <https://mathhub.info/ulo#>
     PREFIX dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/>
 
     SELECT ?work (COUNT(?user) as ?refcount)
     WHERE {
-        ?work dcterms:contributor "John Smith" .
+        ?work dcterms:creator|dcterms:contributor "John Smith" .
         ?user ulo:uses ?work .
     }
     GROUP BY ?work
     ORDER BY DESC(?refcount)
     \end{lstlisting}
-    We see that we can formulate the idea behind~$\mathcal{Q}_3$ with
-    one not very complicated SPARQL query. Because here everything is
-    handled by the database access should be quick.
+    We can formulate~$\mathcal{Q}_3$ with just one SPARQL
+    query. Because everything is handled by the database, access
+    should be quick.
 \end{itemize}
 
+%Finally, ULO provides us with the \texttt{aligned-with} predicate to
+%express equality between concepts~$C_1$ and $C_2$ where $C_1$ and
+%$C_2$ typically originate from different formal
+%libraries~\cite{align}.
+
 \subsection{Organizational Queries}\label{sec:miscq}
 
 \emph{{TODO}: SPARQL Queries references in ULO paper}