Re: ontolex.owl

Sorry, forgot the attachment.

Philipp.

Am 08.07.14 16:24, schrieb Philipp Cimiano:
> 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

-- 
--
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