RE: [OEP] "Classes as values": summary of the discussion so far and second draft

Mike

> An intriguing suggestion.

Better "intriguing" that GOOD or BAD :))

> I agree that our notes will be improved to the
> extent that they use real/vs. fictional examples (modulo the sometimes
> difficult challenge of finding real examples that are simple enough to
> illustrate technical points in a clear way).

The devil is in the (modulo) indeed. Real world is not simple, but is not real world what
this WG is about now?
But in this very case, I think that e.g. "The African Lion" and "Denny the Lion" are
simple enough at a decent level of semantic granularity, IOW if we don't make them too
difficult to grasp by looking too closely at them.

> Hopefully adding this would not be an undue additional burden on
> Natasha, who has put in an enormous effort so far.

Sure.

> Mike
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernard Vatant [mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 2:54 AM
> To: Natasha Noy; swbp
> Subject: RE: [OEP] "Classes as values": summary of the discussion so far
> and second draft
>
>
>
> Natasha and all
>
> A suggestion for the use case scenario would be to give, instead of
> fictional examples,
> reference to actual book publications, identified by their ISBN number,
> based e.g. on what
> can be found at http://isbn.nu/ a very effective website from which
> pragmatic lessons for
> this group can be learned IMO, and which provides what can be considered
> true cool SW
> functionalities in its use of identifiers and dc metadata.
>
> The search with "Lions" as subject at the above URL yields an impressive
> list of links,
> the first hit being a permanent URL
> somehow representing in the system the class of books of which subject
> is "Lions"
> http://isbn.nu/sisbn/lions/
> which yields as today 67 instances in the data base ... where the
> different flavors of
> "subject" that have been discussed here can be found.
>
> Note that each URL below is a permanent one build as simply as possible
> from the ISBN
> number.
> They use dc elements like author, subject, publisher etc, and what book
> vendors data bases
> can retrieve from those (price, availability, delivery delays ...)
>
> "The African Lion"
> http://isbn.nu/089686328X
> This one has for subject the Class Lion, and even a subclass of Lion
> actually.
>
> "Baby Lion"
> http://isbn.nu/1550417118
> The subject is a specific instance, but considered as a "generic" one :
> a baby lion
> similar to any baby lion
>
> "Lenny the Lion"
> http://isbn.nu/0893467995
> The subject is I suppose a fictional instance ...
>
> ... etc
>
> I think including those real examples in the document would make it more
> look like
> real-world stuff, and show what added value an ontology could bring to
> the previous
> resources, by hierarchical linking of e.g.
> http://isbn.nu/sisbn/animals
> http://isbn.nu/sisbn/mammals
> http://isbn.nu/sisbn/cat%20family%20mammals
> http://isbn.nu/sisbn/lions/
>
> Bernard
>
> Bernard Vatant
> Senior Consultant
> Knowledge Engineering
> Mondeca - www.mondeca.com
> bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
>
>
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]De la part de Natasha Noy
> > Envoye : mardi 27 avril 2004 21:57
> > A : swbp
> > Objet : [OEP] "Classes as values": summary of the discussion so far
> and
> > second draft
> >
> >
> >
> > As promised, you can find the second draft of the "classes as values"
> > note at
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Apr/att-0091/
> > ClassesAsValues-v2.html
> >
> > Thanks a million to everyone for all the thoughtful feedback (and for
> > kind words along the way). I think the discussion is not over yet, I
> > tried to address some of the points that seemed less controversial and
> > left some of the discussions (cf my replied to Alan [1] and Aldo [2]
> up
> > in the air for the moment).
> >
> > In lieu of summary of the discussion, here is a list of main changes
> in
> > this version.
> >
> > Running example: it was clear that my example of annotating images of
> > lions was a very bad one, since it wasn't clear whether a subject of
> an
> > image (in the normal English interpretation of the term) is the
> > specific lion in the picture or lions in general. I was trying to
> > address the latter with the pattern and that's what I am trying to
> > stick to (other cases are for other patterns, I think). So, the
> example
> > now is subjects of books, rather than images, which is a bit less
> > ambiguous. A book about lions has the class or subject Lion as its
> > subject, and a specific living breathing creature.
> >
> > Approach 2b is eliminated. It used rdfs:isDefinedBy  to link instances
> > of Subject with the corresponding classes (such as LionSubject and
> > Lion), but the solution was no different (but more verbose) than
> > Approach 4, which used annotation property. The only reason 2b was in
> > OWL DL was because rdfs:isDefinedBy was an annotation property, since
> > it still had a class as its value
> >
> > Full solution in OWL and its different flavors. Deb pointed out in her
> > template for patterns that each pattern should include a full text of
> > the solution in OWL, which makes a lot of sense. I've added that at
> the
> > end of each approach. Since I was mocking up all examples in Protege
> > anyway, it was essentially no effort to add it in RDF/XML syntax, N3,
> > and abstract syntax. So, take your pick :)
> >
> > Outstanding discussion and other issues: Alan and Aldo suggested
> > another approach which uses prototypes as values ([3], [4]). I think
> > with this more narrow scope of the example (subjects of books rather
> > than pictures), their solutions seem to address a somewhat different
> > problem. But I am not sure if we have reached closure on that.
> >
> > Also has also brought up the issue of ontological patterns vs
> pragmatic
> > patterns [4]. I am not sure yet though is this is a use case to
> > distinguish them explicitly here.
> >
> >  From the public and private comments that I have received, it is
> clear
> > that for each of the approaches, at least some people in the group
> > consider them useful and would use them if they had to stay in OWL DL
> > (and, for most, others consider them really bad and will not use them
> > ever). So, I kept all of them for now.
> >
> > Am I forgetting some other outstanding issues?
> >
> > The rest are smaller changes that those looking for a higher-level
> > summary can easily ignore:
> > - In approach 2, I made much more prominen the point that making
> > subjects individual instances of the corresponding classes will make
> it
> > inconsistent with having real animals instances of the same classes.
> > Also changed the summary for that approach
> > - In approach 3, the rdf:type of subject individuals is now a single
> > class Subject (distinguishing this case from 2, and allowing actual
> > physical lions to be instances of the classes in the hierarchy)
> > - In approach 1, saying that something is in OWL Full is not saying
> > much (after all,, all OWL DL ontologies are also in OWL Full). Rather
> > than saying that "This ontology is in OWL Full", it now says "This
> > ontology is in OWL Full, but not OWL DL".
> > - In approach 4, added a diagram illustrating the approach.
> > - Added a footnote anywhere allValuesFrom is used that in some cases
> > someValuesFrom would be more appropriate.
> >
> > Thanks a lot to everyone who has contributed to the discussion! And,
> as
> > I pointed out earlier, I don't think we've reached closure on some of
> > the issues, so, probably, there will be one more iteration.
> >
> > Natasha
> >
> > [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Apr/0137.html
> > [2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Apr/0153.html
> > [3]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Apr/0132.html
> > [4]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Apr/0149.html
> >
>
>

Received on Friday, 30 April 2004 13:02:28 UTC