W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-eiif@w3.org > October 2008

Re: Fwd: triples/ toward RDFizing the schema

From: <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 18:49:09 +0700
Message-ID: <c09b00eb0810070449h76cca4a5q955ba9cc15f06083@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Guido Vetere" <gvetere@it.ibm.com>
Cc: public-xg-eiif <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>, public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org
Thanks Guido

I presume what you suggest below is going to be pretty straighforward to do
, and in fact any ontology editor will probably do, considering I am
supposed to be learning the stuff, I ll have a go at some point. (
procrastinating)

however, putting a schema into rdf/owl is indeed the most trivial part of
creating  maintaining using an ontology


> In the meanwhile, I would suggest getting the XMI 1.4 serialization of the
> current schema,


how do we get that


> import it into Protégé (not necessarily 3.3) and see what happens.


sounds fun


> If the system doesn't crash, at the end you'll get a legal OWL file. Then
> mabye you will have to fix something by hand.


expected

and what happens then? assuming we generate at some point a valid owl file
of our
schema, and we make it accessible,  how is it going to be used? how can we
experiment with it?

I am personally still keen on html/xml because that's what our content/data
exchange systems (standard cms) can work with at the moment, so for me the
ontology is a way of making sure that the underlying  representation schema
is sound m basically I use the ontology to support a  model of the world
that would support the required functinality

But I guess as we are at it, we may as well go all the way and put something
out
that we can play with til we know better


>
>
> As for the message exchange protocol, I'm not sure that 'ontologizing' it
> is really needed -- woudn't be part of the middleware?


I am not sure how our ontology should model/represent/express  the
information flow, lets think about it a bit, but whatever needs to be 'not
casual'  I think, as at the moment is currently this information flow that
fails (systems do not support the right information flow) and possibly one
of the things that external representation can fix. I dont think we need to
ontologise it, but I think we need to make sure that our schema makes the
data flow as efficient and as transparent as possible, and the ontology can
help us verify that
(I think)

thanks a lot G

pdm



>
>
> Cordiali Saluti, Best Regards,
>
> Guido Vetere
> Manager & Research Coordinator, IBM Center for Advanced Studies Rome
> -----------------------
> IBM Italia S.p.A.
> via Sciangai 53, 00144 Rome,
> Italy
> -----------------------
> mail:     gvetere@it.ibm.com
> phone: +39 06 59662137
> mobile: +39 335 7454658
>
>
>
>
>  *paola.dimaio@gmail.com*
> Sent by: public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org
>
> 07/10/2008 04.04
>   To
> Guido Vetere/Italy/IBM@IBMIT
>  cc
> public-xg-eiif <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>
>  Subject
> Re: Fwd: triples/ toward RDFizing the schema
>
>
>
>
> Guido and all
> i am having  two additional thoughts that I would like to know what you
> think of
>
> 1) if our UML is not optimized, and the relationships are not streamlined,
> as in the case of our UML
> I doubt that an ontology that would be derived from it with an automated
> process would be correct
>
> so - correct me if I am wrong  - in order to feed the uml diagram to
> protege and obtain the desired output
> (that is a model that can work and not break) we need to do a bit more work
> on those relations
>
> however, if we work out the triples, we can use them to help us
> improve/rationalize our UML
>
> 2) an important thing that our ontology does not yet model/address is the
> message exchange protocol
> I assume all these relationships correspond to equivalent data/information
> flows, is that correct?
> if so, i wonder what protocols should suppor them (EDXl comes to mind,
> being discussed in parallel) and when would we have to think about it
>
> best
>
> PDM
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 4:48 PM, <*paola.dimaio@gmail.com*<paola.dimaio@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> Dear Guido
> thanks for input
> I am familiar with Protege, in fact I have heard of Protege Light or
> something, and that the recent versions are easier to use
>
> I have been looking forward (and dreading at the same time) the day when I
> would have to learn
> how to use it (I am a bit averse to doing too practical things)
>
> However, that day is coming near as I will be attending the summer school
> at ASWC precisely with the intent
> of getting down to that, as it obviously something that I -we_ really need
> to work with.  I heard also Jena is good
>
> in fact, i think Protege allows for collaborative ontology editing (can you
> confirm?)
> and this is something that we should be working on together (we hope that
> would include you as you sem to have a sense of what we are trying to do
> here)
>
> So, let me ask,
>
> 1) what is the best way to work collaboratively on an ontology using
> Protege (or other tool), do we set up and run it on a server that everyone
> can access, or do we each download an instance on our desktops and let it
> synchronize when we have updates?
>
> 2) considering this is a collaborative ontology building exercise (multiple
> stakeholders) , is there any other tool/environment that would best support
> our task
>
> 3) Mandana, are you up for working together on this, anyone else has skills
> or would like to acquire such skills
>
>
> thanks
>
> pdm
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Guido Vetere <*gvetere@it.ibm.com*<gvetere@it.ibm.com>>
> wrote:
>
> To start, have a look to Protégé *http://protege.stanford.edu/*<http://protege.stanford.edu/> It is not an industrial tool but it's quite stable, is easy to learn and
> supported by a vast community.
> There's a plenty of plugins to extend Protégé basic functionalities,e.g. to
> import UML 1.4 Diagrams through XMI.
> In fact, OWL shares a number of basic modelling principles with OO
> languages: classes, properties, inclusions, etc. Then, depending on the
> expressiveness you need, you have other formal notions such as restrictions,
> disjointness, and so on. A reference on this matter is the *Description
> Logic Handbook*<http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521781760>, where you can go in depth with the theory behind OWL if needed. At the end
> you'll get RDF triples based on RDF Schema + OWL Schema, i.e. you'll be
> using standard (formal) properties with a clear semantics, all blessed by
> W3C! :-)
>
> Cordiali Saluti, Best Regards,
>
> Guido Vetere
> Manager & Research Coordinator, IBM Center for Advanced Studies Rome
> -----------------------
> IBM Italia S.p.A.
> via Sciangai 53, 00144 Rome,
> Italy
> -----------------------
> mail:     *gvetere@it.ibm.com* <gvetere@it.ibm.com>
> phone: +39 06 59662137
> mobile: +39 335 7454658
>
>
>
>   *paola.dimaio@gmail.com* <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
> Sent by: *public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org* <public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org>
>
> 06/10/2008 17.35
>
>   To
> Guido Vetere/Italy/IBM@IBMIT  cc
> public-xg-eiif <*public-xg-eiif@w3.org* <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>>, *
> public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org* <public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org>  Subject
> Re: Fwd: triples/ toward RDFizing the schema
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes, Guido
>
>
> sure!
> Wouldn't we have to work out the triples anyway? Please outline your
> suggested method
> thanks!
> cheers
> PDM
>
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 8:01 AM, Guido Vetere <*gvetere@it.ibm.com*<gvetere@it.ibm.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Paola,
> maybe is a silly question, but since we are developing an ontology and we
> like RDF triples, why don't we simply use OWL? We would get DL formal
> semantics and a plenty of OS tools for editing (e.g. Protégé) and reasoning
> (e.g. Pellet).
>
> Cordiali Saluti, Best Regards,
>
> Guido Vetere
> Manager & Research Coordinator, IBM Center for Advanced Studies Rome
> -----------------------
> IBM Italia S.p.A.
> via Sciangai 53, 00144 Rome,
> Italy
> -----------------------
> mail:     *gvetere@it.ibm.com* <gvetere@it.ibm.com>
> phone: +39 06 59662137
> mobile: +39 335 7454658
>
>
>   *paola.dimaio@gmail.com* <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
> Sent by: *public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org* <public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org>
>
> 05/10/2008 04.36
>
>   To
> public-xg-eiif <*public-xg-eiif@w3.org* <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>>  cc
>   Subject
> Fwd: triples/ toward RDFizing the schema
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Craig, thanks for reply
> I find the comments below educational (learning something)
> so I am forwarding them to the list to see if someone has something to add
>
> yes, CAPS are ugly, only here used to distinguish S/O from p
>
>
>
> cheers, PDM
>
> and no, I dont have a cat !
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: C H <*craighubleyca@yahoo.com* <craighubleyca@yahoo.com>>
> Date: Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 9:59 AM
> Subject: Re: triples/ toward RDFizing the schema
> To: *paola.dimaio@gmail.com* <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
>
>
> Feel free to forward this if a discussion ensues.  No need to bug the
> list with it otherwise.
>
> > I am startedt to think of the schema being worked out by
> > Mandana as triples
>
> Wise.  Astonishingly good tools exist for manipulating RDF triples.
>
> > can someone correct the assertion?
> >
> > SUBJECT predicate OBJECT assumption:
> >
> > (whereby SUBJECT and OBJECT correspond to the entities in
> > the schema, and the predicates to the relationships)
> > would this be right?
>
> Yes.  Another word for predicate is "relation" as in
> entity-relationship diagram.  Generally the word "relation" is
> reserved for the very strict style of table used in relational DBs and
> the word "relationship" for ERDs which are much much looser.
> Predicates are somewhere in between in the scale of strictness - a
> wide range in between from pure logical predicate to vague assertions
> piled up in something like semantic mediawiki (a tag scheme that
> embeds RDF data into mediawiki pages, extraordinarily useful)
>
> > question (do we have to model all the triples for the schema to work?)
>
> No, but any kind of automated processing will stop dead if you don't
> reduce all the relations to three-folded SPO
> (subject/predicate/object) before you ask the robot lawyers to take
> over.  They may do very strange things like sue your cat if you have
> failed to reduce all the constraints to something they understand.
> Try not to give them their own expense account, either - robot lawyers
> can run up quite a bar bill at the gas bar.
>
> By robot lawyers I mean RDF reasoners and so on, of course.  What else?
>
> > AFFECTEDPERSON needs RESOURCE
>
> Suggests others like "affected_person needs refuge_instructions" -
> this ALL-CAPS thing is bad news, it prevents us from writing readable
> sentences.  When an [[affected_person needs refuge instructions]] it
> would be best to just be able to write it like that because then
> humans and machines can both read it with no translation (assuming _
> equates to space when rendered).
>
> > ORGANISATION has CONTACTPERSON
> >
> > ORGANISATiON has CAPACITY is RESOURCE (N TUPLE)
> >
> > RESOURCE has TIME/LOCATION/OTHER ATTRIBUTE
>
> While you're using them right here, be careful with preposition predicates.
> An "is" and "has" must be used very specifically, usually by "is" we
> mean "is-a-kind-of" and by "has" we mean "has-characteristic" or
> "has-component" or "has-resource" (different things, a characteristic
> is an inseparable attribute, a component is required for it to work
> properly and a resource is something it can share or give away without
> failing).
>
> Consider also the time relationships required to deal with a temporal
> database.  Korzybski said "is" and the verb "to be" were questionable
> at best and could mean too many things, crossing the actual
> operational time bindings we use in practice.  In real reality, we are
> *remembering* or *explaining* the past which is different from
> *sensing* or *comparing* the present state to other things present,
> both of which are different from *envisioning* or *predicting* the
> future.  The use of "is" and "are" in that sentence is the most basic
> and if you don't respect that distinction you get into trouble - for
> instance, confusing historical data with some future projection in
> order to get some entirely bogus present "trend line".
>
> (where economics goes wrong...)
>
> > does this make sense to anyone on this list, or am I
> > enterering another planet? etc etc
>
> Makes perfect sense to me.  But I may have to ask a robot lawyer.  I
> hope you don't have a cat.
>
> > Paola Di Maio
> > School of IT
> > *www.mfu.ac.th* <http://www.mfu.ac.th/>
> > *********************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Paola Di Maio
> School of IT*
> **www.mfu.ac.th* <http://www.mfu.ac.th/>
> *********************************************
>
>
>
>
> IBM Italia S.p.A.
> Sede Legale: Circonvallazione Idroscalo - 20090 Segrate (MI)
> Cap. Soc. euro 361.550.000
> C. F. e Reg. Imprese MI 01442240030 - Partita IVA 10914660153
> Società con Azionista Unico
> Società soggetta all'attività di direzione e coordinamento di International
> Business Machines Corporation
>
> (Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated otherwise above)
>
>
>
> --
> Paola Di Maio
> School of IT*
> **www.mfu.ac.th* <http://www.mfu.ac.th/>
> *********************************************
>
>
> IBM Italia S.p.A.
> Sede Legale: Circonvallazione Idroscalo - 20090 Segrate (MI)
> Cap. Soc. euro 361.550.000
> C. F. e Reg. Imprese MI 01442240030 - Partita IVA 10914660153
> Società con Azionista Unico
> Società soggetta all'attività di direzione e coordinamento di International
> Business Machines Corporation
>
> (Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated otherwise above)
>
> IBM Italia S.p.A.
> Sede Legale: Circonvallazione Idroscalo - 20090 Segrate (MI)
> Cap. Soc. euro 361.550.000
> C. F. e Reg. Imprese MI 01442240030 - Partita IVA 10914660153
> Società con Azionista Unico
> Società soggetta all'attività di direzione e coordinamento di International
> Business Machines Corporation
>
> (Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated otherwise above)
>
>
>
> --
> Paola Di Maio
> School of IT*
> **www.mfu.ac.th* <http://www.mfu.ac.th/>
> *********************************************
>
>
>
> --
> Paola Di Maio
> School of IT*
> **www.mfu.ac.th* <http://www.mfu.ac.th/>
> *********************************************
>
>
> IBM Italia S.p.A.
> Sede Legale: Circonvallazione Idroscalo - 20090 Segrate (MI)
> Cap. Soc. euro 361.550.000
> C. F. e Reg. Imprese MI 01442240030 - Partita IVA 10914660153
> Società con Azionista Unico
> Società soggetta all'attività di direzione e coordinamento di International
> Business Machines Corporation
>
> (Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated otherwise above)
>



-- 
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
*********************************************
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2008 11:49:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 7 October 2008 11:49:47 GMT