Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
Commit e06762c1 authored by Andreas Schärtl's avatar Andreas Schärtl
Browse files

slides: write conclusion

parent f751ae48
No related branches found
No related tags found
No related merge requests found
...@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ ...@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@
\item Narrative Knowledge \item Narrative Knowledge
\item Organizational Knowledge \item Organizational Knowledge
\end{itemize} \end{itemize}
\item Each component should be formated, stored and accessible in a \item Each component should be formatted, stored and accessible in a
format optimized for the given kind of knowledge. format optimized for the given kind of knowledge.
\end{itemize} \end{itemize}
\end{frame} \end{frame}
...@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ ...@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@
\vspace{2mm} \vspace{2mm}
While the explorative part is probably the more interesting to talk While the exploring part is probably the more interesting to talk
about, the implementation probably has more practical use. about, the implementation probably has more practical use.
\end{frame} \end{frame}
...@@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ ...@@ -104,7 +104,7 @@
\begin{frame}{Implementation: Components} \begin{frame}{Implementation: Components}
\begin{itemize} \begin{itemize}
\item \emph{TODO}: Add pretty picture. \item \emph{TODO}: Add pretty picture.
\item Involved in the implemtation for \emph{ulo-storage} are the \item Involved in the implementation for \emph{ulo-storage} are the
following components. following components.
\begin{itemize} \begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Collector:} Fetch XML~files from Git~repositories \item \emph{Collector:} Fetch XML~files from Git~repositories
...@@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ ...@@ -122,7 +122,7 @@
\begin{frame}{Implementation: Choice of Database} \begin{frame}{Implementation: Choice of Database}
\begin{itemize} \begin{itemize}
\item choice of db: triplet store for triplets is the only reasonable choice \item choice of db: triplet store for triplets is the only reasonable choice
\item fun fact: graphdb is more picky than other DBs \item fun fact: GraphDB is more picky than other DBs
\end{itemize} \end{itemize}
\end{frame} \end{frame}
...@@ -177,11 +177,19 @@ ...@@ -177,11 +177,19 @@
\subsection{How to Represent Algorithms} \subsection{How to Represent Algorithms}
\begin{frame}{Applications and Questions: How to Represent Algorithms} \begin{frame}{Applications and Questions: Algorithms that Solve Problems}
\begin{itemize} \begin{itemize}
\item query that wants to find algorithms that solve $NP$-complete \item One query for a tetrapodal search system is the following:
graph problems ``Find algorithms that solve $NP$-hard graph
\item how to represent algorithms and problems and programs; oh my problems''~\cite{tetra}.
\begin{itemize}
\item Exploit \texttt{ulo:theorem} and \texttt{ulo:proof}?
Tempting but potentially very complicated.
\item Algorithms aren't programs! Programs implement
algorithms that solve problems.
\end{itemize}
\item This illustrates the difficulty in designing an ontology
(schema) that is both expressive and concise.
\end{itemize} \end{itemize}
\end{frame} \end{frame}
...@@ -191,9 +199,16 @@ ...@@ -191,9 +199,16 @@
\begin{frame}{Summary} \begin{frame}{Summary}
\begin{itemize} \begin{itemize}
\item {???} \item Importing existing XML~exports into a queryable database is
\item {???} pretty straightforward. It does introduce some interesting
\item {???} questions.
\item \emph{Versioning} of data sets requires us to re-create
databases. This does introduce latency but is probably the only
way out as diffing huge data sets is not feasible.
\item Existing exports have ``holes'', they only use small-ish
subsets of~{ULO}. On the other hand, representing algorithms and
algorithmic problems might require us to extend~{ULO}? Maybe instead
of tetrapodal search we need $n$-podal search.
\end{itemize} \end{itemize}
\end{frame} \end{frame}
......
0% Loading or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment