R: ontolex.owl

Well, you can “mention” resources from another ontology, without having to owl:import it (write an owl:import statement between your vocabulary and the target one). This is mostly suggested when your ontology A is “connected” to another one B but does not strictly need B for computing the inferences which are inherent to its (of A) model.

 

With an owl:import, any tool  which performs automatic transitive closure of owl:imports, will download all of the target ontologies of the owl:imports and in turn, of their owl:imported ontologies. Not using it, prevents this from happen (though a user is always free to import ontologies of other mentioned resources manually).

 

In our case, if we put links to semiotics.owl in a dedicated module, then I would say it is not a problem to use an owl:import, because if you use that module, then you are explicitly willing to use semiotics.owl. If links are reported in the core module, then totally agree with John.

 

Cheers,

 

Armando

 

P.S: I’ve almost certainly said some redundant and trivial things up there: sorry in advance, just was not sure about the exact scope of the technical question

 

 

Da: Philipp Cimiano [mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de] 
Inviato: domenica 6 luglio 2014 21:26
A: public-ontolex@w3.org; public-ontolex@w3.org
Oggetto: Re: ontolex.owl

 

Hi John, all,

 ok so what does it mean technically "to include links to semiotics.owl ... avoiding an OWL import statement" ?

Philipp.

Am 03.07.14 06:44, schrieb John P. McCrae:

Hi,

We should include links to semiotics.owl and other relevant resources, but unless we are dependent on that model we should avoid using an OWL import statement

Regards,
John

On 2 Jul 2014 21:02, "Philipp Cimiano" <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> > wrote:

Aldo,

right. Is anyone against including this alignment in the spec.

Please shout now or be silent forever.

Philipp.


Am 27.06.14 16:23, schrieb Aldo Gangemi:

Too late for the call, sorry.
Yes, that is what I intended: it’s bizarre that we include an alignment without even mentioning in the spec :)
A

On Jun 27, 2014, at 4:18:22 PM , Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> > wrote:

Hi Aldo,

not sure I get your comment. Are you saying: If you import semiotics.owl, please mention it also in the spec?
Just trying to understand what exactly is bizarre ;-)

Philipp.

Am 27.06.14 14:21, schrieb Aldo Gangemi:

Hi I will try to attend this telco. Anyway, I missed the discussion about not including semiotics.owl in the spec. I remember we said these alignments should not be part of the core itself, but maybe we should mention that it exists in the owl implementation, and why. As it is, it sounds bizarre :)
Aldo

sent by aldo from a mobile

On 23/giu/2014, at 08:28, Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> > wrote:

Dear all,

I have been working on ensuring consistency of the ontolex.owl module with the spec.

I have:

1) made sure that all axioms in the ontology correspond to those in the spec; the ontology is consistent ;-)
2) ensured that all domain / ranges match
3) introduced examples illustrating the use in the git under directory "Examples"
4) included the semiotics.owl ontology as we decided some time ago; we agreed to not have this in the spec, but in the actual ontology, see ontology file

I attach the current version of the ontolex.owl module (see attached).

I would kindly ask you to help me to ensure that the example in Examples are fine. I did not find a service to validate the files (they are in Turtle syntax). Can someone please check them and modify them appropriately, modifying also the spec where these example are given?

I would like to finalize the model on our telco on Friday, so please raise any concerns this week.

Please carefully review the ontology and the text; if you spot any issues, please let me know.

I have added a pointer to the GIT in the main wiki page.

Best regards,

Philipp.


-- 

Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano

Phone: +49 521 106 12249 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012249> 
Fax: +49 521 106 12412 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012412> 
Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> 

Forschungsbau Intelligente Systeme (FBIIS)
Raum 2.307
Universität Bielefeld
Inspiration 1
33619 Bielefeld

<OntolexCore.png>

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

Tel: +49 521 106 12249 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012249> 
Fax: +49 521 106 6560 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%206560> 
Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> 

Office CITEC-2.307
Universitätsstr. 21-25
33615 Bielefeld, NRW
Germany

 


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

Tel: +49 521 106 12249 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012249> 
Fax: +49 521 106 6560 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%206560> 
Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> 

Office CITEC-2.307
Universitätsstr. 21-25
33615 Bielefeld, NRW
Germany








-- 
 
Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
 
Phone: +49 521 106 12249
Fax: +49 521 106 12412
Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> 
 
Forschungsbau Intelligente Systeme (FBIIS)
Raum 2.307
Universität Bielefeld
Inspiration 1
33619 Bielefeld