Re: Sanity check on the SSN Ontology

Protege reports the language required for the sensor ontology (with  
DUL) as SRIQ(D).

For the sensor ontology alone (i.e. no DUL), I don't think we use the  
qualified number restrictions or the datatypes, so it's a simpler  
logic; however, you would want to use those things in any example  
using the ontology.  Nominals are also pretty useful.  So most things  
that use the ontology would end up using SROIQ(D) - the WM30 example I  
did for the wiki does.

Michael



On 08/11/2010, at 11:34 , Alexandre Passant wrote:

>
> On 8 Nov 2010, at 07:43, Michael Compton wrote:
>
>> Nice work.  Good to see that we can (almost) pass these various  
>> validation tools.
>>
>> I think we should we add links in the report (say in the intro or  
>> conclusion of either the whole report or the ontology section) for  
>> these
>
> Good idea. And since the first one is Linked-Data oriented, that's  
> also a good way to outreach the ontology to the LOD community.
>
>> and indicate how the ontology passes through pellet lint.
>
> As a matter of interest, what's its OWL sub-language / dialect ?
>
> Alex.
>
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 08/11/2010, at 9:11 , Alexandre Passant wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I've made a few sanity tests to check the current SSN ontology
>>>
>>> * Compliance with the LOD principles, using Vapour [1]
>>>
>>> Some tests fail here.
>>>
>>> http://validator.linkeddata.org/vapour?vocabUri=http%3A%2F%2Fpurl.oclc.org%2FNET%2Fssnx%2Fssn&classUri=http%3A%2F%2F&propertyUri=http%3A%2F%2F&instanceUri=http%3A%2F%2F&defaultResponse=dontmind&userAgent=vapour.sourceforge.net
>>>
>>> - 1st request while dereferencing resource URI without specifying  
>>> the desired content type (HTTP response code should be 303  
>>> (redirect)):Failed
>>> => AFAIK, purl allows to specify a 303 rather than a 302 when  
>>> redirecting, so that should be easy to fix
>>>
>>> - 2nd request while dereferencing resource URI without specifying  
>>> the desired content type (Content type should be 'application/rdf 
>>> +xml'):Failed
>>> => That can be fixed on the /2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/images/3/36/  
>>> folder with a .htaccess file, containing
>>>
>>> AddType application/rdf+xml .xml
>>>
>>> * Semantic / syntactic validation, using Sindice inspector [2]
>>>
>>> 100% OK
>>>
>>> http://inspector.sindice.com/inspect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpurl.oclc.org%2FNET%2Fssnx%2Fssn&content=&doTriplesValidation=1&doSyntaxValidation=1
>>>
>>> Hope that helps,
>>>
>>> Alex.
>>>
>>> [1] http://validator.linkeddata.org/
>>> [2] http://inspector.sindice.com/
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dr. Alexandre Passant
>>> Digital Enterprise Research Institute
>>> National University of Ireland, Galway
>>> :me owl:sameAs <http://apassant.net/alex> .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Dr. Alexandre Passant
> Digital Enterprise Research Institute
> National University of Ireland, Galway
> :me owl:sameAs <http://apassant.net/alex> .
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 8 November 2010 23:52:13 UTC