Re: [ld4lt] MetaShare OWL metamodel: first steps

Hi Jorge, all,

Am 23.04.2014 um 13:11 schrieb Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es>:

> Dear all,
> 
> In our first telco I took the action of starting the discussion about the new OWL/RDF version of the MetaShare metadata model for documenting Language Resources. For the moment I have created a space in the wiki to start collecting information and related pointers. See https://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt/wiki/Main_Page#OWL_Metamodel_for_Language_Resources
>  
> We have to decide how to proceed for editing collaboratively the ontology in a simple way.


One aspect of the LD4LT group is that there are many members not knowledgable about technical details of semantic web technology. That is good IMO since the group will be a place to learn. For the concrete topic of metamodel, I am wondering whether editing the ontology directly will lead to loosing these people. In other similar exercises (= mapping existing formats using an ontology) we used a tabular representation to develop the mappings, and the ontology was just a file edited by the technical experts. See here

http://www.w3.org/TR/mediaont-10/#mpeg-table

I am wondering whether such an approach may make sense here too?

About
http://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt/track/
if you want to gather issues around the ontology development, I would create a new product here
http://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt/track/products/new
e.g. "META-SHARE metadata model“, and then for each discussion topic an issue
http://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt/track/issues/new
e.g. for this topic “how to work on the model: ontology editing vs. tabular mapping vs. …“
then, using the identifiers of the issues will lead to mails automatically being gathered in the tracker system. 

I just did that and this for above product + issue. This mail then should be listed under

https://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt/track/issues/2

Then, making an agenda for a call can be done via this link
https://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt/track/agenda
which shows you issues and action items.

Best,

Felix

> I see three options here (feel free to propose others):
> - use WebProtege (http://webprotege.stanford.edu/)
> - use the ld4lt wiki
> - use Github
> Each one has its pros/cons. We can analyse them and take a decision in the next telco. 
> 
> The starting point will be the ontology already developed at Universitat Pompeu Fabra, which can be found at http://purl.org/ms-lod/MetaShare.ttl
> 
> @Dave: do I have to register this activity as an issue in the tracking system? http://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt/track/options
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> -- 
> Jorge Gracia, PhD
> Ontology Engineering Group
> Artificial Intelligence Department
> Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
> http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/~jgracia/