Re: ontolex.owl

Dear all,

  I think I fixed it. See attached. Let me know if this is fine.

The new version is checked in the GIT ontolex project.

Best regards,

Philipp

Am 08.07.14 14:28, schrieb Aldo Gangemi:
> I am talking Protege.
> For removing the import just remove the import axiom. For adding 
> entities you just create a new entity without the default namespace. I 
> can do that if you want.
>
> sent by aldo from a mobile
>
> On 08/lug/2014, at 13:54, Philipp Cimiano 
> <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de 
> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>> wrote:
>
>> Aldo,
>>
>>  you mean remove the import from the owl file by deleting the import 
>> text or deleting the import in Protégé?
>>
>> I do not know how to define the entries from the external ontology as 
>> new entities with their URIs, but I will try out and let you know ;-)
>>
>> In any case, we seem all to agree on the strategy, but the 
>> implementation is still unclear, which is good.
>>
>> Stay tuned.
>>
>> Philipp.
>>
>> Am 08.07.14 13:38, schrieb Aldo Gangemi:
>>> A couple of possibilities:
>>>
>>> 1) (simpler) import the ontology, create the links, then remove the 
>>> import ;)
>>> 2) (more accurate) define the entities from the external ontology as 
>>> new entities with their URIs, then create the links
>>>
>>> (1) is very quick, but the entities that remain “orphan” after the 
>>> import removal are not typed.
>>>
>>> Aldo
>>>
>>> On Jul 8, 2014, at 1:28:02 PM , Philipp Cimiano 
>>> <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de 
>>> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> OK, the thing is: I am working with Protegé and I do not know how 
>>>> to create a subclass axiom without importing the ontology.
>>>>
>>>> If somene can help and remove the import but keeping the owl 
>>>> subclass axioms linking to semiotics.owl, then this would be the 
>>>> perfect solution I think.
>>>>
>>>> Any volunteers? You can directly change the ontology in bitbucket 
>>>> and create a merge request.
>>>>
>>>> Philipp.
>>>>
>>>> Am 06.07.14 21:49, schrieb Armando Stellato:
>>>>> Well, you can “mention” resources from another ontology, without 
>>>>> having to owl:import it (write an owl:import statement between 
>>>>> your vocabulary and the target one). This is mostly suggested when 
>>>>> your ontology A is “connected” to another one B but does not 
>>>>> strictly need B for computing the inferences which are inherent to 
>>>>> its (of A) model.
>>>>> With an owl:import, any tool which performs automatic transitive 
>>>>> closure of owl:imports, will download all of the target ontologies 
>>>>> of the owl:imports and in turn, of their owl:imported ontologies. 
>>>>> Not using it, prevents this from happen (though a user is always 
>>>>> free to import ontologies of other mentioned resources manually).
>>>>> In our case, if we put links to semiotics.owl in a dedicated 
>>>>> module, then I would say it is not a problem to use an owl:import, 
>>>>> because if you use that module, then you are explicitly willing to 
>>>>> use semiotics.owl. If links are reported in the core module, then 
>>>>> totally agree with John.
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Armando
>>>>> P.S: I’ve almost certainly said some redundant and trivial things 
>>>>> up there: sorry in advance, just was not sure about the exact 
>>>>> scope of the technical question
>>>>> *Da:*Philipp Cimiano [mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de]
>>>>> *Inviato:*domenica 6 luglio 2014 21:26
>>>>> *A:*public-ontolex@w3.org;public-ontolex@w3.org
>>>>> *Oggetto:*Re: ontolex.owl
>>>>> Hi John, all,
>>>>>
>>>>>  ok so what does it mean technically "to include links to 
>>>>> semiotics.owl ... avoiding an OWL import statement" ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Philipp.
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 03.07.14 06:44, schrieb John P. McCrae:
>>>>>
>>>>>     Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>     We should include links to semiotics.owl and other relevant
>>>>>     resources, but unless we are dependent on that model we should
>>>>>     avoid using an OWL import statement
>>>>>
>>>>>     Regards,
>>>>>     John
>>>>>
>>>>>     On 2 Jul 2014 21:02, "Philipp Cimiano"
>>>>>     <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
>>>>>     <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>         Aldo,
>>>>>
>>>>>         right. Is anyone against including this alignment in the spec.
>>>>>
>>>>>         Please shout now or be silent forever.
>>>>>
>>>>>         Philipp.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         Am 27.06.14 16:23, schrieb Aldo Gangemi:
>>>>>
>>>>>             Too late for the call, sorry.
>>>>>             Yes, that is what I intended: it’s bizarre that we
>>>>>             include an alignment without even mentioning in the
>>>>>             spec :)
>>>>>             A
>>>>>
>>>>>             On Jun 27, 2014, at 4:18:22 PM , Philipp Cimiano
>>>>>             <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
>>>>>             <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Hi Aldo,
>>>>>
>>>>>                 not sure I get your comment. Are you saying: If
>>>>>                 you import semiotics.owl,
>>>>>

-- 
--
Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
AG Semantic Computing
Exzellenzcluster für Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
Universität Bielefeld

Tel: +49 521 106 12249
Fax: +49 521 106 6560
Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de

Office CITEC-2.307
Universitätsstr. 21-25
33615 Bielefeld, NRW
Germany