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

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

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 16:03:21 +0200
Cc: "public-semnews@w3.org" <public-semnews@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E22C592A-43AF-465F-AA78-BAD565A58CCC@w3.org>
To: "Myles, Stuart" <SMyles@ap.org>
Stuart,

on the process side: I have no idea of the CG technical things there; do you prefer I would put my comment on the web site rather than as a mail?

Ivan

On May 16, 2012, at 15:49 , Myles, Stuart wrote:

> 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
> 
> 


----
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
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 14:00:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 16 May 2012 14:00:14 GMT