- From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 21:05:54 +0200
- To: public-ontolex@w3.org
- Message-ID: <53BC4112.5020501@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Dear all, the ontolex module is now clean: 1) ontolex.owl passes the validation test here: http://mowl-power.cs.man.ac.uk:8080/validator/ 2) all the Turtle examples in Examples/ontolex are parsed by the JENA API, so I see them as syntactically valid The next step would be to add some validators and an API that works with these examples. I continue now with the synsem module. In the meantime, it would be great if you could all check the ontolex.owl module and the examples in detail. We will formally approve the ontolex.owl module by vote starting from next week. In the meantime, please send me any change requests or bugs you spot. Best regards, Philipp. Am 08.07.14 16:46, schrieb Philipp Cimiano: > 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 -- Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano Phone: +49 521 106 12249 Fax: +49 521 106 12412 Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de Forschungsbau Intelligente Systeme (FBIIS) Raum 2.307 Universität Bielefeld Inspiration 1 33619 Bielefeld
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2014 19:06:24 UTC