W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2014

Re: Attribute or Property Ontology?

From: Mike Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 01:40:02 -0500
Message-ID: <53C4CCC2.8090900@mkbergman.com>
To: janowicz@ucsb.edu, "stko@lists.geog.ucsb.edu" <stko@lists.geog.ucsb.edu>
CC: Michel Dumontier <michel.dumontier@gmail.com>, Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>, SW-forum Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Linking Open Data <public-lod@w3.org>
Hi Krzysztof,

What I am trying to get at is a coherent ontology of attributes that can 
be used for mapping ABox instance data for integration and 
interoperability purposes. The general idea is to have a reference 
grounding upon which external semantic datasets can co-reference as a 
bridging mechanism.

As one example, let's say that dataset A describes location of an entity 
with the attribute country, and only provides literal values, whereas 
another dataset B describes location with object properties by ISO 
country code. The reference grounding could be an ontology with the 
complete listing of ISO country codes. This is not the simplest example, 
since the literal in dataset A would need to be evaluated and lifted to 
the reference object property. Probably some user interface would need 
to be involved to reconcile uncertainties, making the process 
semi-automatic.

Other examples may not involve lifting, but may involve unit conversions 
or other manipulations. Those, too, would likely need to be semi-automatic.

On the face of it, the scope may sound daunting. But, my observation is 
that most attributes (explicitly used to describe entities) follow a 
Pareto distribution and the number of commonly used attributes (say, 
between schema.org, Wikidata, and other leading KBs) is tractable. Once 
a suitable design and starting framework was in place, grounding values 
could continue to be expanded, as well as possible lifting and 
conversion utilities.

The advantage of this approach to dataset/KB authors is that only one 
mapping need to be made to the reference grounding. Thereafter, other 
datasets mapping to the same attribute(s) could be inspected for 
possible interoperability.

UMBEL, as a subset of Cyc, already has about 2000+ of its concepts 
already assigned to the attribute SuperType [1]. I was able to rather 
quickly pull together one initial high-level view for 90 or so of them 
to construct what such a attribute concept structure may look like:

Attributes			
	ObjectValueCharacteristics		
		StringObject	
			StringDatatype_Unlimited
		List_Information	
			FrequentlyAskedQuestionsList
			MailingList
			AlphabeticalList
			Index_List_Information
			BullettedFormat
		UnitOfMeasure	
			UnitOfDistance
			InternationalUnitOfMeasure
			UnitOfMeasure_Common
		NaturalLanguage	
		Encrypted	
		AuthenticationSource	
		PersistenceDistribution	
			Uniform_PersistenceDistribution
		UnitOfMeasureConcept	
			Ratio
		CollectionType	
			Phase
			EmptyCollection
			Preference
		Quantity	
		AttachmentAttribute	
			WrittenInfo
			StructuredInfo
			VisualInfo
			AudioInfo
		LogicalFieldAttribute	
		TruthValue	
	EntityCharacteristics		
		DescriptiveAttributes	
			Definition_PCW
			VisualPattern
			SpatialThingTypeByShape
			ShapeAttributes
			Color
			Name
			Title
		EnumeratedAttributes	
			EconomicalQuantity
			DispositionalQuantity
			MentalQuantity
			PhysicalQuantity
			Quality
			SocialQuantity
			MeasurableQuantity
			TotallyOrderedQuantityType
			QuantityType
			NonAspectualQuantity
			EnvironmentalQuantity
			ActionAttributeLevelQuantity
			EmotionalQuantityType
		LocationAttributes	
			OrientationAttributes
			GeographicalPlace
			MappableAttributes
			ContactLocation
			PopulatedPlace
		TimeAttributes	
			HistoricTemporalThing
			Time_Quantity
			EventAttributes
			TimeInterval
			TemporalThing
		IdentificationAttributes	
			ContactLocation
			ReferenceWork
			IDString
			UniqueID
		SituationAttributes	
			Situation
Qualifier			
Statement			
Collection			
	'Ordered Collection'		
Individual			
'Concept Scheme'			
Class			
Concept			
	Statement		
	Class		
	RefConcept		


This is *very* preliminary, and some of the names don't yet feel right. 
Also, there are some new concepts added (which need to be checked in 
Cyc) for better organization. But it does try to capture one 
more-or-less high-level view of the outlines for this structure. SIO has 
a different, but similar, approach.

I am purposefully excluding "relations" between entity types in this 
thinking. Rather, I am focusing strictly on the instance descriptions 
and characterizations (attributes). For the attributes as defined, 
however, both bundles and hierarchies are of interest.

Does this help?

If so and there is a relationship with your own geographic interests, 
perhaps we can talk offline. Since I envision this reference grounding 
having common use, geographic attributes would definitely be included, 
as shown above.

Best, Mike

[1] See Annex G at http://umbel.org/annexes/

On 7/11/2014 1:08 PM, Krzysztof Janowicz wrote:
> SIO looks really interesting! Thanks for sharing. Just to make sure we
> all talk about the same. Mike, are you looking for bundles of relations
> and attributes that characterize types or hierarchies of relations and
> attributes? We are doing the first for geographic feature types (e.g.,
> state) if this would be of any interest to you.
>
> Best,
> Krzysztof
>
>
> On 07/11/2014 10:49 AM, Michel Dumontier wrote:
>> Hi Mike,
>>    We have done some work in SIO [1] to guide the development of
>> descriptive and quantitative attributes. We have a recently published
>> paper [2] that articulates some of our design decisions, and how we
>> use them in our work. Happy to work with you on your use cases in the
>> context of our public mailing list [3]
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> m.
>>
>> [1] http://sio.semanticscience.org
>> [2] http://www.jbiomedsem.com/content/5/1/14
>> [3] http://groups.google.com/group/sio-ontology
>> Michel Dumontier
>> Associate Professor of Medicine (Biomedical Informatics), Stanford
>> University
>> Chair, W3C Semantic Web for Health Care and the Life Sciences Interest
>> Group
>> http://dumontierlab.com
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2014 06:40:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:52 UTC