Re: [WNET] Schemas online

Hi Mark,

We have had similar problems with OWL ontologies generated by our UML 
tool validating/loading in most of
the tools you've listed, including Protege beta 3.1, but not in 3.2.  We 
have not tried them in Triple20, but we
do load them successfully in Pellet and RacerPro. 

I've reported this to Jennifer at SMI, who indicated that the behavior 
around OWL imports in Protege-OWL
has changed recently, with contributions from new collaborators from the 
University of Manchester who
have provided the imports code.  I've copied Jennifer in hopes that she 
will forward the links and issue
to the appropriate developers.

Thanks,

Elisa

Mark van Assem wrote:

>
>
> Hi all,
>
> The schemas for WordNet Basic and Full are online [1]. They 
> validate/load in the W3C RDF Validator [2], the WonderWeb OWL 
> validator [3], Triple20 [4] and SWOOP [5]. They do not load in Protege 
> Full 3.2 Beta [6], for a reason I do not understand.
>
> A few remaining questions/comments:
>
> - I used XML Schema Datatypes also for e.g. the gloss and lexicalForm 
> properties, but I can recall that when properties have an XSD as range 
> then the actual glosses and lexical forms are not supplied with the 
> XML lang attribute. If this is correct, I should probably change to 
> rdfs:Literal?
>
> - there are two properties that are subPropertyOf rdfs:label / 
> rdfs:comment. The OWL validator complains that the rdfs properties 
> should be DatatypeProperties. Is this an issue?
>
> - I have not cleaned the rdfs:comments in the schema files yet.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark.
>
> [1]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/wn/wn20/schemas/
> [2]http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/
> [3]http://phoebus.cs.man.ac.uk:9999/OWL/Validator
> [4]http://www.swi-prolog.org/packages/Triple20/
> [5]http://www.mindswap.org/2004/SWOOP/
> [6]http://protege.stanford.edu/download/registered.html
>
>
> Mark van Assem wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> A new version of the WordNet draft can be found at [1] for 
>> consideration for First Working Draft status at tomorrow's telecon.
>>
>> The main differences with the previous [2] draft are (a) new proposal 
>> for URIs as discussed on the list; (b) all material on indirection 
>> and versioning is moved to the Issues list.
>>
>> The RDF will be made available a.s.a.p. when the conversion program 
>> has been adapted to the changes in the Draft and a service has been 
>> set up at the W3C to serve CBD's for the WN URIs as described in the 
>> Draft.
>>
>> With regards,
>> Mark.
>>
>> [1]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wn-conversion-20062304
>> [2]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wn-conversion-20060403
>>
>

Received on Wednesday, 10 May 2006 16:53:19 UTC