W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2009

Re: EU FP Ontology projects

From: Leo Sauermann <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 14:38:36 +0100
Message-ID: <49ABE15C.8000301@dfki.de>
To: Azamat <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>
CC: Leo Sauermann <leo@gnowsis.com>, "'SW-forum'" <semantic-web@w3.org>
The PIMO ontology is only one of many ontologies published by NEPOMUK.
It is further described in the exhaustive PDF file:
http://www.semanticdesktop.org/ontologies/2007/11/01/pimo/v1.1/pimo_v1.1.pdf

there is a class hierarchy from pimo:Thing downwards and from 
pimo:relatingProperty
and pimo:describingProperty.

for the other ontologies, see the other files, this is also quite 
exhaustive:
http://www.semanticdesktop.org/ontologies/nie/

best
Leo

It was Azamat who said at the right time 27.02.2009 18:16 the following 
words:
> Leo,
> Thank you for your reference. It must be a quality project if relied 
> on your works.
> I guess the PIMO ontology, 
> http://www.semanticdesktop.org/ontologies/2007/11/01/pimo/pimo_data.rdfs, is 
> the last version.
> It lists the ontology classes in alphabetical order: agent, 
> association,..., building, city, class(or)thing, 
> class(or)thing(or)property(or)association,..., collection,..., 
> even,..., organization,..., person, persongroup,..., process 
> concept,..., thing, topic.
> Association means relationship? If yes, isn't it a key ontology property?
> There is the template structure used for each class: 
> superclass/suclass; domain/range, description/instances. Wonder if 
> there is a single hierarchy connecting the PIMO classes and 
> properties? Thanks.
>  
> Azamat Abdoullaev
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Leo Sauermann <mailto:leo@gnowsis.com>
>     *To:* Azamat <mailto:abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>
>     *Cc:* 'SW-forum' <mailto:semantic-web@w3.org>
>     *Sent:* Friday, February 27, 2009 4:32 PM
>     *Subject:* Re: EU FP Ontology projects
>
>     Hi
>
>     shameless self-ad:
>     Maybe you should look at the contribution from the NEPOMUK project
>     FP6-027705,
>     we created ontologies (I am co-author of many of them) for
>     knowledge worker data sources (email, files, contacts,
>     addressbook) by improving the existing w3c ontologies.
>     they are here:
>     http://www.semanticdesktop.org/ontologies/
>     project:
>     http://nepomuk.semanticdesktop.org/
>
>     and some of these have been embedded in the KDE 4.0/Linux
>     platform, leading to a very big deployment
>     of RDF on desktop computers - the strigi/soprano search-engine of
>     KDE4.0 was based by us on RDF and ontologies - big exposure to the
>     public.
>     http://nepomuk.kde.org/
>
>     they are now managed here:
>     www.oscaf.org
>
>     NOKIA (who were NOT project partners!) say about our ontologies:
>     ===
>     "We examined the NEPOMUK ontologies and found that they are a well
>     suited for our plans for the Nokia Maemo platform (www.maemo.org)
>     based next generation internet enabled mobile devices.
>
>     We are developing a mobile semantic content storage and retrieval
>     solution that uses NEPOMUK as its base ontology.
>     We are in the process of adapting and extending the ontologies and
>     pushing the changes to be part of the NEPOMUK standards.
>
>     The recommendations created as standards by the NEPOMUK project
>     are a solid foundation for the semantic mobile content solutions
>     we are working on."
>
>     Urho Konttori
>     Project Manager
>     Nokia - Maemo Desktop Data
>     ===
>
>     I can also comment on the NeOn statement below:
>     we used ontologies as data standards. very pragmatic, very
>     time-intensive to do, but it solved some itch that was there. Key
>     is the business case - if someone is willing to pay for an
>     ontology, you have a higher chance to get it done.
>     second to that: test-data. have testdata at hand, examples of
>     information, which you want to express
>     in your ontology. (use cases, requirements, etc).
>     imho only third comes the decision if you want to reuse,
>     integrate, go LOD, or similar.
>
>     hth
>     Leo
>
>     It was Azamat who said at the right time 27.02.2009 12:53 the
>     following words:
>>     Dear All,
>>      
>>     Making a review, I am looking for the full listing of FP6/FP7
>>     ontology-centered semantic technology projects:
>>     1. ESSI or STI Projects (Knowledge Web, SUPER, TripCom).
>>     [The mission of STI International  - Semantic Technology
>>     Institute International - is to establish Semantics as a core
>>     pillar of modern computer engineering.]
>>     2. ONTORULE project.
>>     [The objective of ONTORULE is to integrate all the required
>>     pieces of knowledge and technology to allow the acquisition of
>>     ontologies and rules from the most appropriate sources, including
>>     natural language documents]
>>     3. NeOn project.
>>     [Our aim is to advance the state of the art in using ontologies
>>     for /large-scale/ semantic applications in the distributed
>>     organizations. Particularly, we aim at improving the capability
>>     to handle multiple /networked ontologies/ that exist in a
>>     particular /context/, are created /collaboratively/, and might be
>>     highly dynamic and constantly /evolving/.]
>>     Which else is promising integrative frameworks, models, methods,
>>     techniques, or tools ? 
>>     I'd appreciate any extension to the short list: web sites,
>>     general documents, deliverables, research papers, etc.
>>      
>>     Also, if anybody could comment on the NeOn methodolody:
>>     "Most of the existing practices for the development of ontologies
>>     focus on a single ontology, on a global consistency of such an
>>     ontology, and, in principle, on a linear development. This is
>>     very restrictiveľ it is as if we all communicated in a single
>>     language and completely disregarded our cultural or historical
>>     specifics. Single ontology means single viewpoint on the
>>     problems, situations and solutions. If in our everyday life we
>>     use many different viewpoints, why can't designers of semantic
>>     applications and engineers developing knowledge models do the
>>     same? In NeOn, we see several dimensions, in which the existing
>>     single-ontology style of work need to be enriched:...",
>>     http://www.neon-project.org/web-content/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=23&Itemid=23
>>     <http://www.neon-project.org/web-content/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=23&Itemid=23>
>>     Thanks.
>>     Azamat Abdoullaev
>>     http://www.eis.com.cy <http://www.eis.com.cy/>
>>      
>>     ----- Original Message -----
>>     From: "Jos de Bruijn" <debruijn@inf.unibz.it
>>     <mailto:debruijn@inf.unibz.it>>
>>     To: <semantic-web@w3.org <mailto:semantic-web@w3.org>>
>>     Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 12:32 PM
>>     Subject: Postdoc position at Free University of Bozen-Bolzano
>>
>>     > ============================================================
>>     > Job: Postdoc position at Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy
>>     > Duration: 3 years, renewable (by mutual consent) for another 3
>>     years
>>     > Topics: Knowledge Representation, Description Logics, Rules
>>     >
>>     > Language requirement: English
>>     >
>>     > Application deadline: 25 March 2009
>>     > ============================================================
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > The KRDB research centre at the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano
>>     > (http://www.inf.unibz.it/krdb/) seeks applicant for a postdoctoral
>>     > position. The bulk of the research to be carried out is in the
>>     context
>>     > of the ONTORULE project (http://ontorule-project.eu/), and is
>>     concerned
>>     > with the application of Description Logics to business rules
>>     and the
>>     > combination of production rule and Description Logic
>>     formalisms. Both
>>     > representational adequacy and computational complexity play
>>     important
>>     > roles in such combinations.
>>     >
>>     > Candidates must have a strong research record and a solid
>>     background in
>>     > description and/or modal logics. Experience with first-order
>>     modal and
>>     > fixed-point logics, and to a lesser extent experience with
>>     active rule
>>     > languages such as production rules, is considered desirable,
>>     but by no
>>     > means mandatory.
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > ============================================================
>
>
>     -- 
>     ____________________________________________________
>     Leo Sauermann                 http://www.leobard.net 
>                                http://leobard.twoday.net
>     How to remember things?
>       http://gnowsis.opendfki.de
>       http://dev.nepomuk.semanticdesktop.org
>     How to get data as RDF?
>       http://aperture.sf.net
>     What is the meaning of life?
>       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_of_God
>     ____________________________________________________
>         
>


-- 
____________________________________________________
DI Leo Sauermann       http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann 

Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer 
Kuenstliche Intelligenz DFKI GmbH
Trippstadter Strasse 122
P.O. Box 2080           Fon:   +49 631 20575-116
D-67663 Kaiserslautern  Fax:   +49 631 20575-102
Germany                 Mail:  leo.sauermann@dfki.de

Geschaeftsfuehrung:
Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c.mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender)
Dr. Walter Olthoff
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
____________________________________________________
Received on Monday, 2 March 2009 13:39:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:28 GMT