W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpmlod@w3.org > October 2015

Re: SV: Questions about TBX to RDF handling

From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 18:17:30 +0200
To: public-bpmlod@w3.org
Message-ID: <560EAE1A.2040307@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Dear Peter, all,

https://github.com/cimiano/tbx2rdf/blob/master/ontology/tbx.owlis an old 
version of the ontology that is not maintained anymore.

On the versioning information: If some entries are revised or deleted, 
one could add Transactions modelled Activities (in the sense of the 
Provenance Ontology) including information that this is a 
DeletionActivity. One could add also a "MakeObsolete" Activity that 
relates two terminological concepts. However, we have not thought too 
deep about this. It could be interesting to extend the guidelines along 
these lines. We would be happy to look into this. Can you send some 
examples of what you want to represent?

The guidelines show an example how to represent transactions as PROV 

Of course, some status triples could be added directly to the 
terminological concepts, but that does not replace making explicit the 
history and provenance, e.g. who deleted the entry and why, who said 
that some terminology concept makes another one obsolete etc.

The question is whether to do versioning *in* RDF or outside RDF: 
depending on the use case, there are different answers I assume.

If one does versioning *in* RDF, then the terminological concept is 
still there, in spite of having being deleted... there would be a 
property added to mark it as deleted (something like tomb marker) and a 
transaction describing the deletion activity. Is this the way you would 
like to go?

Just for curiosity: why were you surprised to find these guidelines? 
This comments surprises me ;-)



Am 02.10.15 um 17:14 schrieb Peter Svanberg:
> Q1: So I should usehttp://tbx2rdf.lider-project.eu/tbx# ? (Now 
> dereferenceable, good!)
> Q2: I found an OWL file at 
> https://github.com/cimiano/tbx2rdf/blob/master/ontology/tbx.owl
> Q3 (new): I just read in 
> http://www.ttt.org/oscarStandards/tbx/tbx_oscar.pdf 
> <http://www.ttt.org/oscarStandards/tbx/tbx_oscar.pdf> that
> Any enclosed markup shall have any start-tag characters ("<") or 
> ampersands (&) converted into their respective entities, &lt; and 
> &amp; (8.6.2)
> but if I do that in my example
> <descrip type="definition">kommersiell &lt;hi>verksamhet&lt;/hi> som 
> drivs under ordnade former</descrip>
> it breaks your conversion service 
> (http://tbx2rdf.lider-project.eu/converter/tbx2rdf.html, “An ERROR has 
> happened”).
> Regards,
> Peter Svanberg
> *Från:*johnmccrae@gmail.com [mailto:johnmccrae@gmail.com] *För *John 
> McCrae
> *Skickat:* den 2 oktober 2015 15:16
> *Till:* Peter Svanberg
> *Kopia:* public-bpmlod@w3.org
> *Ämne:* Re: Questions about TBX to RDF handling
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Peter Svanberg <Peter.Svanberg@tnc.se 
> <mailto:Peter.Svanberg@tnc.se>> wrote:
>     Extra question 1: How should these best practice reports be
>     interpreted? As (a) “Please do it this way, try to use our tbx
>     vocabulary/ontology …” or (b) “Here is some tips on how it could
>     be done, but adjust to your needs and context.”?
> Best practices are guides that you should follow, but are not as 
> prescriptive as a standard or recommendation. As such, it is likely 
> that for a particular case there may need to be some extension, e.g., 
> defining extra properties, but for the most part it is prefered to 
> follow the best practices.
>     Extra question 2: In your file tbx.owl you define both a
>     skos/core#TerminologicalConcept (not present in the SKOS spec.)
>     and (it’s subclass) tbx.owl#TerminologicalConcept, how come?
> That seems wrong, I have fixed it.
> Where did you get tbx.owl from by the way? It seems it was not 
> available at the address it should have been at, namely 
> http://tbx2rdf.lider-project.eu/tbx
> Regards,
> John

Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
AG Semantic Computing
Exzellenzcluster für Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
Universität Bielefeld

Tel: +49 521 106 12249
Fax: +49 521 106 6560
Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de

Office CITEC-2.307
Universitätsstr. 21-25
33615 Bielefeld, NRW
Received on Friday, 2 October 2015 16:18:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 2 October 2015 16:18:02 UTC