Re: Best practices for versioning and documenting ontologies for Sem Web

I tried Ontoology, that has the advantage to be already hosted, and ready
to provide added documentation on a github depot holding OWL content in the
form of pull requests.
Here is the generated doc.:

https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/assemblee-
virtuelle/pair/blob/master/OnToology/PAIR_1.0.owl.ttl/docume
ntation/index-en.html

I was expecting ontology evaluation (criticizm ).
I thought that Ontoology would somehow normalize my Ontology, like
discussed in this thread.

Other SUGGESTIONS:

   - in entry page for the service : http://ontoology.linkeddata.es/
   - I would have liked completion on github projects
      - a link to the generated doc.
   - automatically produce the jsonld context from the ontology, maybe
   using https://github.com/stain/owl2jsonld



2017-02-06 17:59 GMT+01:00 Jean-Marc Vanel <jeanmarc.vanel@gmail.com>:

>
> I've looked at Vocol, and it's too complex to install as a server, the
> mere length of the install pages is frightening. But it certainly has good
> tools.
>
> But the idea of using pre-commit git hooks is good.
>
> I thought of a simple pre-commit that would use *rapper* to validate the
> Turtle syntax, and translate to N-Triples format, plus possibly applying
> the sort command to prevent re-ordering of the triples by tools like
> Protégé .
> Protégé and certainly other tools can read the N-Triples format, after all
> it's Turtle also.
>
> Using sorted N-Triples format, which is kind of canonical format, aims at
> avoiding non-significant differences in git versioning. But I admit that it
> does not work if tools renames blank nodes.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2017-01-31 8:47 GMT+01:00 Niklas Petersen <petersen@cs.uni-bonn.de>:
>
>> +1 on any git-based tool recommendation + N3/Turtle
>>
>> On documentation & publishing:
>>
>> Depending on your team, there are very likely knowledge engineers, domain
>> experts (and probably users) with some knowledge in modeling things and
>> those completely without. I would recommend in the beginning to take the
>> time to identify in which way different potential contributers might be
>> able to engage in the development process and with the ontology itself.
>> This includes presenting different tools to edit/visualize the ontology and
>> explain them thoroughly the Turtle syntax if that is your weapon of choice.
>> To keep the threshold as low as possible, I would further recommend to you
>> tools which offer a web interface. The goal needs to be to provide anyone
>> with a mild interest in your ontology an easy way to engage with it. Good
>> luck!
>>
>> On 30.01.2017 15:08, Simon Spero wrote:
>>
>> (metaphysics should be avoided
>> as much as possible, but it's important to be able to recognize it so you
>> know what to run away from)
>>
>> Out of curiosity, could you give an example?
>>
>> Niklas
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Jean-Marc Vanel
> http://www.semantic-forms.cc:9111/display?displayuri=http:/
> /jmvanel.free.fr/jmv.rdf%23me
> Déductions SARL - Consulting, services, training,
> Rule-based programming, Semantic Web
> +33 (0)6 89 16 29 52 <+33%206%2089%2016%2029%2052>
> Twitter: @jmvanel , @jmvanel_fr ; chat: irc://irc.freenode.net#eulergui
>



-- 
Jean-Marc Vanel
http://www.semantic-forms.cc:9111/display?displayuri=http://jmvanel.free.fr/jmv.rdf%23me
Déductions SARL - Consulting, services, training,
Rule-based programming, Semantic Web
+33 (0)6 89 16 29 52
Twitter: @jmvanel , @jmvanel_fr ; chat: irc://irc.freenode.net#eulergui