Re: Ideas for a possible framework

I'm posting again 'cos I don't know if I've sent the right attachment. I've
also updated license terms to be GNU 1.3.

Finally I agree and I need to develop an ontology. Could such an (upper)
ontology be made. What would be the more abstract or the more concrete
levels of conceptualization and what examples are out there of such efforts..

Regards,
Sebastián.

On Oct 30, 2016 2:13 PM, "Sebastian Samaruga" <ssamarug@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi, sorry again for cross posting... I was replying to an old message. If
> you think it's the right context I will stick to this lists.
>
> I've tried to put some input triples examples in the sets section of the
> document and how they gets transformed along the metamodels chain. Also
> added some comments regarding merge and protocol.
>
> It is difficult to put an ontology in paper for this because I have
> datasources (anything from which I can extract RDF, RDBMSs, CSV, etc.) and
> a 'runtime' (inferred) ontology over those 'domain' data which is input
> specific (not known beforehand). Then I align / merge this ontologies and
> augment them with type and links information. All without a previously
> known schema.
>
> So, the only thing I can do if someone asks me for 'my' ontology is to
> develop an upper ontology and then align the instances and inferred type
> information from my inputs to that ontology. That's not so bad idea, I
> think. If I can abstract the modelling of data, contexts and behavior in
> that ontology it could serve as a kind of 'declarative runtime definition'
> for my environment from which to consume / query beforehand known
> structures.
>
> Said that, could anyone tell me how to model and what to put in such
> ontology?
>
> Regards,
> Sebastián.
>
> On Oct 30, 2016 7:28 AM, "Timothy Holborn" <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Cross posting makes it difficult.  A Smart woman said to me today
>> "There is no such thing as a bad idea … ever. There are just ideas in
>> context."
>>
>> I suggest the RWW group may be best suited to what you're trying to work
>> on, but I could be wrong.
>>
>> My First suggestion is to author the vocab / ontology for your idea.  I
>> suspect this may be a positive step forward in that you'd then be able to
>> write documents that use your ontology to form some sort of view.
>>
>> Would a sparql plugin for WordPress provide you assistance in modelling
>> your ideas in code?
>>
>> You'll find an array of relevant tools here:
>> https://profiles.wordpress.org/shawfactor/#content-plugins
>>
>> Another facet that may be worth documenting is the means in which linked
>> data is already used on the web. this may in-turn assist your audience with
>> context.
>>
>> Tim.h.
>>
>>
>> On Sun., 30 Oct. 2016, 10:24 am Sebastian Samaruga, <ssamarug@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry for being so insistent. Feedback is valuable 'cos I tend to
>>> reinvent the wheel. I agree that RDF/OWL are enough powerful and vast
>>> technologies by themselves. I don't want to reinvent them. I've updated the
>>> draft I'm publishing with my thoughts as an attachment hoping is more clear
>>> than the previous (was not as clear as I wanted).
>>>
>>> To put it on one statement: I want to generate RDF/OWL from diverse
>>> datasources, augment it with knowledge and make it available through a set
>>> of APIs/protocols, all this leveraging what existing semantic web
>>> frameworks can provide.
>>>
>>> Hope not being bothering anyone with so many drafts. Best,
>>>
>>> Sebastián.
>>>
>>> On Oct 1, 2016 9:15 AM, "Martynas Jusevičius" <martynas@graphity.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sebastian,
>>>
>>> I've said this before and I'll say it again: why do you need to build
>>> a (meta)model above RDF? Kind, SubjectKind, Dimension etc. -- why is
>>> all this stuff necessary?
>>>
>>> Do not attempt to extend RDF, and drop the UML/object-oriented models.
>>> Instead, work *within* RDF: use triples to store data, and use OWL
>>> ontologies, classes, properties, datatypes etc. to model your domain.
>>>
>>> Those are the only things you need. Show us your ontologies, then you
>>> will get better responses. You can try some of these ontology editors:
>>> http://protege.stanford.edu/
>>> http://www.cognitum.eu/semantics/FluentEditor/
>>> http://www.topquadrant.com/tools/modeling-topbraid-composer-
>>> standard-edition/
>>>
>>>
>>> Martynas
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 5:20 AM, Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > (Apologies for cross posting / over posting)
>>> >
>>> > Hi, I'm currently a software student and developer. Since I've meet
>>> semantic
>>> > related technologies development about twelve years ago I've been
>>> revolving
>>> > with the idea that a framework could be built that could ease building
>>> > semantic business applications as they are frameworks for Java and
>>> > relational databases.
>>> >
>>> > A lot of time passed. Now many big players offer solutions that
>>> somehow rely
>>> > on semantics for their work. And although this could seem strange,
>>> here in
>>> > Buenos Aires I couldn't find anyone really interested in the area,
>>> being in
>>> > academia or places I've worked in.
>>> >
>>> > So, having no one to share my thoughts with, I'm frequently publishing
>>> > documents to this list(s) hoping for some kind of peer's feedback.
>>> Sorry if
>>> > this aren't the right lists or I'm off topic. I send my attachment as
>>> a PDF
>>> > document. Anyone willing to comment in the original just ask me for the
>>> > Google Docs link.
>>> >
>>> > Note: I've sent this draft before but in a very early version state. I
>>> > invite anyone interested in reading to see the last section
>>> (Dashboards).
>>> > Maybe I'm wrong but I think there is a lot of innovation that may be
>>> done
>>> > regarding that subject (sorry for the poor diagrams :--)
>>> >
>>> > Best Regards,
>>> > Sebastián Samaruga.
>>>
>>>