Re: Alignment between prov-o and SWEET

Hello Stian,
Thanks for your comment here and participation over on the SWEET Github
issue tracker.
Can you please clarify the following. You've stated "...it might mean you
having to challenge some of the existing ontology design..." does this
relate to PROV, SWEET or both?
Thank you again Stian for correcting the hyperlink.
Lewis

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <
soiland-reyes@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

> I would commend your alignment towards PROV 😊 – although it might mean
> you having to challenge some of the existing ontology design, at least if
> you want to go for a “sound” (semantically consistent) integration rather
> than a quicker “scruffy” provenance.
>
>
>
> Just a note – I think you sent the wrong link. I found the PROV discussion
> at https://github.com/ESIPFed/sweet/issues/28
>
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, eScience Lab
> School of Computer Science, The University of Manchester
> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>
>
>
> *From: *lewis john mcgibbney <lewismc@apache.org>
> *Sent: *31 August 2017 15:15
> *To: *public-prov-comments@w3.org
> *Subject: *Alignment between prov-o and SWEET
>
>
> Hi Folks,
> We recently open sourced and transitioned the SWEET Ontology suite [0]
> from NASA JPL over to the ESIP Federation [1] and have renewed the interest
> in the resource from within ESIP and further afield. I'm currently
> spearheading an effort to bring SWEET up-to-date with a wide variety of
> advances in ontologies such as the excellent work undertaken by this WG on
> prov-o.
> Right now I am working on aligning SWEET with prov-o and would really
> appreciate input/peer review from this WG on alignment accuracy and extent.
> So far initial discussion can be seen at [2].
> I propose to use the Alignment API software [3] developed by INRIA
> Rhône-Alpes, France to determine basic alignments. My choice of alignment
> software was determined by reviewing a larger list of ontology matching
> software [4] and making a judgement about software usability in order to
> determine instances of owl:equivalentClass.
> As you can see, very little work has been done. I am therefore looking to
> extend alignments in any way, shape or form which is accurate and factually
> correct. If you are able to provide input on wherever else I may be missing
> additional alignments, please comment at [2].
> Thank you kindly in advance,
> Lewis
>
> [0] https://github.com/ESIPFed/sweet
> [1] http://esipfed.org
> [2] https://github.com/ESIPFed/sweet/pull/38
> [3] http://alignapi.gforge.inria.fr/align.html
> [4] http://ontologymatching.org/projects.html
>
> --
> http://home.apache.org/~lewismc/
> @hectorMcSpector
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/lmcgibbney
>



-- 
http://home.apache.org/~lewismc/
@hectorMcSpector
http://www.linkedin.com/in/lmcgibbney