- From: Florian Stegmaier <stegmai@dimis.fim.uni-passau.de>
- Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:00:41 +0200
- To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Dear all, i don´t want to get too deep into this discussion at the moment, but i guess the key problem is, that the scope of the ontology is not yet clear to everybody or was not yet defined in a right way. Maybe we should clearly state what we want to achieve with it (also reflect it into the onto-doc). Maybe this should end the discussion. From my point of view, at the moment it is not more than a vocabulary. Maybe it will be "more", if there is the possibility to store mappings as well - which is afaik also the purpose of it. Best, Florian Am 23.09.2010 um 10:49 schrieb Tobias Bürger: > Dear all, > > I missed the whole discussion due to traveling, but my two cents which I would like to share on this issue are: > > If the ontology shall only be used as a vocabulary then we need not to care about OWL Full vs. OWL DL. Then we could make it fairly simple and just revert back to the RDF(S) version which was the first I have developed for the group. If we want to define a lot of restrictions in the usage of our vocabulary we have to go for OWL. > Wrt to including FOAF directly in our ontology: Many others do slightly change/adapt the FOAF ontology to be OWL-DL compliant (if they care because of their application scenario about it). There are a lot of guidelines and discussions on how to do this on the Web. > > The lack of tools should not restrain us from going for an OWL2 profile. You can check this page for tools providing OWL2 support: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Implementations > > OWL2 vs OWL1: I do not care too much at the moment about this choice, unless we think that we need the newly defined functionality in OWL2. > > Best, > > Tobias > > Am 23.09.2010 09:36, schrieb Evain, Jean-Pierre: >> What is ma-ont (not me, isn't it) trying to achieve? That is the question ! >> >> My question was of course asked in this context (public-media-annotation@w3.org?). I hope experts in this group have views on this. >> >> If the task is about searching content of interest through different angles reflected by the ontology properties across different namespaces linked to ma-ont through mapping, then I interpret from your response that FULL should maybe not be used to maximise searchability resulting in more positive accurate hits. >> >> We all know this can be avoided by not using certain properties. The use of rdfs:literal may also be an alternative to punning leaving the choice to enter e.g. a URI (link to a SKOS concept although there is more to say about not using a concept class) or string. >> >> DL it is? >> >> I had a look at OWL-2 and its different profiles. QL would seem to be the right profile. However, I still need to look at some of the restrictions on classes in more details. I also would need to make sure that tools exist to work on this. >> >> Jean-Pierre >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Raphaël Troncy [mailto:raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr] >> Sent: mercredi, 22. septembre 2010 23:39 >> To: Evain, Jean-Pierre >> Cc: 'Yves Raimond'; Tobias Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org >> Subject: Re: OWL FULL or DL? >> >> I certainly didn't want to make this personal, so let's de-passionate >> the debate and talking only on the core matters. You first told us about >> supposed behaviors of FOAF that we have never seen, looking at only what >> is important, the machine readable version of the FOAF ontology (and not >> a particular rendering in a particular tool). >> >>> The point I made is disconnected from this as although this is a old >>> debate it seems there are still doubts on what should preferably be >>> used for operational implementation. >> I point you to precise questions. There are no doubts about operational >> implementation as soon as you know how the ontology will be used, what >> are its purpose. I would not recommend to develop OWL Full ontologies if >> the core matters is to do complex reasoning or if it is important to >> have all the good answers to a query. That's why, I asked you what was >> the purpose of the ontology. >> >>> This is a question for which I >>> have much more sympathy than floating in cyberspace using 'cool' >>> tools. >> Who talked about 'cool' tools or features or whatever? >> >>> Still you neither said anything I didn't know >>> nor brought a convincing argument in favour of FULL. >> I simply don't understand what are your issues. The question you are >> asking has no general answer, or if you prefer, the answer is "it >> depends" ... thus again, asking clarification, see my questions. >> Their only purpose is not to bother you, but just identifying precisely >> what you need to adopt the best technology ... this is also why we have >> flavors and profiles for OWL and OWL2. And by the way, this is the first >> thing that ontology engineering best practices recommend to do (not me >> saying this :-). >> >> Raphaël >> > > -- > ================================================================ > Dr. Tobias Bürger Knowledge and Media Technologies Group > Salzburg Research FON +43.662.2288-415 > Forschungsgesellschaft FAX +43.662.2288-222 > Jakob-Haringer-Straße 5/III tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at > A-5020 Salzburg | AUSTRIA http://www.salzburgresearch.at _____________________________ Dipl. Inf. Florian Stegmaier Chair of Distributed Information Systems University of Passau Innstr. 43 94032 Passau Room 248 ITZ Tel.: +49 851 509 3063 Fax: +49 851 509 3062 stegmai@dimis.fim.uni-passau.de https://www.dimis.fim.uni-passau.de/iris/ http://twitter.com/fstegmai _____________________________
Received on Thursday, 23 September 2010 09:30:44 UTC