W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semnews@w3.org > May 2012

RE: Draft rNews 1.0 OWL Ontology: Feedback Requested [via Semantic News]

From: Myles, Stuart <SMyles@ap.org>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 13:49:29 +0000
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: "public-semnews@w3.org" <public-semnews@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2B3AA5056E3CB8428BDE670B2CEEC54F1CAE79F7@CTCXMBX02.ap.org>
Thanks for this feedback! I (and the others on this list) will take a little bit of time to digest this and will respond.

But on a W3C CG note, I'm a bit disappointed that the email responses to this post don't make it to the comments on the website:

http://www.w3.org/community/semnews/2012/05/15/draft-rnews-1-0-owl-ontology-feedback-requested/#comments

Is that a deliberate policy? Although I suppose fractured (distributed) conversations are the way of the modern world. (I am also getting a little bit of feedback via Twitter, e.g. http://twitter.com/#!/kidehen/status/202729636327718912) and it could be that others are seeing things that I'm not seeing...

Regards,

Stuart




-----Original Message-----
From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 7:02 AM
To: Myles, Stuart
Cc: public-semnews@w3.org
Subject: Re: Draft rNews 1.0 OWL Ontology: Feedback Requested [via Semantic News]

Stuart,

thanks.

I *think* there is an issue with some of the patterns you use. Consider the following:

<http://iptc.org/std/rnews/2011-10-07#encodingFormat> 
   rdfs:domain <http://iptc.org/std/rnews/2011-10-07#AudioObject>, 
               <http://iptc.org/std/rnews/2011-10-07#ImageObject> ,
               <http://iptc.org/std/rnews/2011-10-07#VideoObject> ;  .

(I have removed the other statement on encoding format).

Let us suppose we have 

<http://www.example.org/o> iptc:encodingFormat "Something" .

An OWL reasoner will use the OWL ontology *as a license to infer* (_not_ to control the validity of the data). It will therefore infer the following three triples:

<http://www.example.org/o> rdf:type <http://iptc.org/std/rnews/2011-10-07#AudioObject> .
<http://www.example.org/o> rdf:type <http://iptc.org/std/rnews/2011-10-07#ImageObject> .
<http://www.example.org/o> rdf:type <http://iptc.org/std/rnews/2011-10-07#VideoObject> .

All these inferences are absolutely valid. I have the impression that is not what you expect...

I presume what you wanted to say is that a subject to the encodingFormat property is expected to be an audio object *or* an image object *or* a video object, but not all of these. In which case what you have to use (and I realize this is more convoluted):


<http://iptc.org/std/rnews/2011-10-07#encodingFormat>
  rdfs:domain [ a owl:Class; 
                owl:unionOf (
                   <http://iptc.org/std/rnews/2011-10-07#AudioObject>
                   <http://iptc.org/std/rnews/2011-10-07#ImageObject>
                   <http://iptc.org/std/rnews/2011-10-07#VideoObject>
                )
              ] .

In this case the OWL reasoner will infer, well, what was described in an English sentence. You may even want use:


<http://iptc.org/std/rnews/2011-10-07#encodingFormat>
  rdfs:domain [ a owl:Class; 
                owl:disjointUnionOf (
                   <http://iptc.org/std/rnews/2011-10-07#AudioObject>
                   <http://iptc.org/std/rnews/2011-10-07#ImageObject>
                   <http://iptc.org/std/rnews/2011-10-07#VideoObject>
                )
              ] .


which reinforces the fact that and audio object is not a video object (if this is also an additional feature you want to emphasize).

I hope this helps

Cheers

Ivan


On May 15, 2012, at 19:00 , Stuart Myles wrote:

> We've created an IPTC rNews 1.0 ontology file in OWL. It is available 
> at http://dev.iptc.org/files/rNews/rnews_1.0_draft1.owl This is just a 
> draft, but we'd like to get feedback from the experts on any 
> improvements we can make, whether it is in syntax, structure, 
> documentation or any other aspect. So, let us know what you think! 
> Regards, Stuart
> 
> 
> 
> ----------
> 
> This post sent on Semantic News
> 
> 
> 
> 'Draft rNews 1.0 OWL Ontology: Feedback Requested'
> 
> http://www.w3.org/community/semnews/2012/05/15/draft-rnews-1-0-owl-ont
> ology-feedback-requested/
> 
> 
> 
> Learn more about the Semantic News: 
> 
> http://www.w3.org/community/semnews
> 
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf








The information contained in this communication is intended for the use
of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of this 
communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that you have received this communication in error, and that any review,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please 
notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at +1-212-621-1898 
and delete this email. Thank you.
[IP_US_DISC]

msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 13:50:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 16 May 2012 13:50:08 GMT