W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ld4lt@w3.org > April 2014

Re: [ld4lt] MetaShare OWL metamodel: first steps

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 11:10:09 +0200
Cc: public-ld4lt@w3.org
Message-Id: <74706F0A-64FD-479B-8B60-F18B688B1BBB@w3.org>
To: Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es>
Hi Jorge, all,

sorry for the late reply. The W3C infrastructure has wikis which in my experience are OK for editing a tabular representation but not ideal. So other groups are using something else for collaborative editing. Sorry, not ideal - if there are any suggestions please let me / us know.

Best,

Felix

Am 28.04.2014 um 11:12 schrieb Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es>:

> Hi Felix/Penny/all
> 
> 2014-04-25 7:40 GMT+02:00 Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>:
> 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?
> 
> 
> That makes a lot of sense to me. @Felix: in your experience... did you edit the tabular representation in the wiki or somewhere else? 
> 
>  
> 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
> 
> Thanks for this!
>  
> Regards,
> Jorge
> 
> 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/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jorge Gracia, PhD
> Ontology Engineering Group
> Artificial Intelligence Department
> Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
> http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/~jgracia/


Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2014 09:10:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:16:08 UTC