Re: Schema.org and OWL

In the realm of upper ontologies I think ISO-15926 [1] handles this sort of
issues nicely (that's why I'm copying this thread to semantic-web) but it
is a whole of an upper ontology and didn't have the time to understand it
completely.

For what is whorth for me, I'm trying to adapt an object-oriented design
pattern (DCI: Data, Context and Interactions [2]) to the realm of RDF Quads
metamodels. There I regard of dimensionally aggregated data (D) for which
schema occurrences (C) play roles in behaviors instances / flows (I).

I'm working in a formal description of the later, and I've also posted
previously some blurry early drafts. I also have a strong focus in ontology
alignments / translations so the use case could fit for generating other
schema documents. Regards,
Sebastián.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_15926

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data,_context_and_interaction


On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 5:23 AM <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:

> My read of all this is that
>
>
> schema.org:Event subClassOf natural-language:Event .
>
>
> You need to recognize that the name of the concept in schema.org is more
> specialized that the use of the word 'Event' in all English-language
> usages.
>
> The upper-ontologies resolve this by using a more technical word - like
> occurrent or perdurant - which includes all time-bounded things including
> both planned events, unplanned incidents, things that move around, as well
> as other kinds of interactions. But even these attempts to define
> universals must be taken with a pinch of salt. Classification is contextual
> - the 'same thing' may be classified differently in different applications.
> The main application of schema.org is SEO, so the classification system
> is tuned to that.
>
>
>
>
> *Simon J D Cox *Research Scientist
> Land and Water
> <http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Flagships/Land-and-Water>
> CSIRO
>
> E simon.cox@csiro.au *T* +61 3 9545 2365 *M* +61 403 302 672
> *   Physical: *Reception Central, Bayview Avenue, Clayton, Vic 3168
> *   Deliveries: *Gate 3, Normanby Road, Clayton, Vic 3168
>    *Postal:* Private Bag 10, Clayton South, Vic 3169
> people.csiro.au/C/S/Simon-Cox
> orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420
> researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3
> <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Anthony Moretti <anthony.moretti@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, 11 June 2018 8:26 AM
> *To:* Dan Brickley
> *Cc:* Peter F. Patel-Schneider; Richard Wallis; public-schemaorg@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Schema.org and OWL
>
>
> Yep I definitely understand it doesn't imply disjointedness. But
> subclassing is answered by the "some or all" test, and I'd argue that all
> instances of these types are events. For example, is there an example of a
> trip that is not an event?
>
>
> And yep I completely agree, some not all books have current offers for
> sale/trade, so books are not a subtype of product. And I completely agree
> with the second example too, some not all things being offered are creative
> works. For example, an orange being offered for sale is a product but not a
> creative work, thus not all products are creative works. So I don't think
> those are examples of tradeoffs by schema.org, they're completely correct
> modeling by schema.org.
>
>
> If things like trips aren't considered events then strange behavior or
> additional work for people will result. For example a reasoner might look
> for all events to display on a calendar, but with the current structure all
> trips will have to be additionally typed as events, when in my view it
> should be implicit from already being classified as a trip.
>
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 2:38 PM Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>
>> The lack of a "subclassof" relationship doesn't mean we consider the
>> types disjoint. You might similarly argue that all books are products, or
>> that all products are creative works. While we respect the efforts of the
>> ontologies community, Schema org is a bit different in the tradeoffs we
>> have chosen to make. The looseness may be frustrating but it has also
>> helped us grow this thing incrementally.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, 14:28 Anthony Moretti, <anthony.moretti@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If we believe schema.org will be used long into the future then even if
>>> changes are hard we should try to make them right?
>>>
>>>
>>> Arguing by word origins, even the word "action" comes from "event".
>>> Using the dictionary on Google:
>>>
>>>
>>>     "action"
>>>
>>>     "act"
>>>
>>>     "actus" (Latin) - event, thing done
>>>
>>>
>>> Arguing by structure, Actions on schema.org duplicate the startDate and
>>> endDate properties (startTime and endTime). Additionally, Actions have a
>>> state property on schema.org but Events do not, yet all action states
>>> can all be derived from more general event states. So putting Action, or
>>> any type with a startDate or endDate, as a subtype of Event actually
>>> removes redundancy.
>>>
>>>
>>> A simple test to determine whether something is an event or not is can
>>> it be put on a calendar and look normal? I think instances of all the types
>>> I mentioned can:
>>>
>>>
>>>     Event
>>>
>>>         Action
>>>
>>>         Course
>>>
>>>         Offer
>>>
>>>         ParcelDelivery
>>>
>>>         Relationship
>>>
>>>         Trip
>>>
>>>
>>> Anthony
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 11:38 AM Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, we decided against cramming Actions under Event a long time ago,
>>>> even if it has a certain appeal; I' d say same goes for the other event-ish
>>>> types.
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, 11:24 Peter F. Patel-Schneider, <
>>>> pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's very difficult to determine what things are instance of
>>>>> schema.org Event
>>>>> because the guidance is so slim, particularly as we are not supposed
>>>>> to take
>>>>> into account most of the information on http://schema.org/Event.   My
>>>>> view is
>>>>> that even if we are supposed to ignore everything after "certain time
>>>>> and
>>>>> location", then schema.org Event should be read narrowly, excluding
>>>>> things
>>>>> that don't have a certain time or don't have a certain location.  This
>>>>> would
>>>>> rule out Action, ParcelDelivery (as the entire delivery process), and
>>>>> Trip, as
>>>>> these generally take place over several locations.   Offer is ruled out
>>>>> because it often doesn't have a location at all and its temporal
>>>>> information
>>>>> doesn't have to do with its "happening".  Course is also ruled out
>>>>> because it
>>>>> is more than a sequence of lectures.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> One could take an expansive view of schema.org Event, perhaps saying
>>>>> that its
>>>>> instances are anything that has a temporal component and a spatial
>>>>> component.   So Bill Murray is an instance of schema.org Event via
>>>>> his birth
>>>>> date and his location on Earth, as is his membership in the cast of
>>>>> Ghostbusters.  But then what things aren't instances of Event (besides
>>>>> platonic entities like 3, if you assume that there are any truly
>>>>> platonic
>>>>> entities)?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a middle ground?  Formal ontologists have attempted to create
>>>>> one---dividing the universe into endurants and perdurants.  But I
>>>>> don't see
>>>>> that schema.org Event is getting at the meaning of perdurant.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> peter
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 06/10/2018 12:32 AM, Anthony Moretti wrote:
>>>>> > Let's get the easy ones out of the way before looking at Roles. The
>>>>> > following are obviously subtypes of event, I might create an issue
>>>>> on GitHub
>>>>> > to get more feedback:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     Event
>>>>> >
>>>>> >         Action
>>>>> >
>>>>> >         Course
>>>>> >
>>>>> >         Offer
>>>>> >
>>>>> >         ParcelDelivery
>>>>> >
>>>>> >         Trip
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I'll argue for Role now. In my view, it would be easier to
>>>>> understand if the
>>>>> > terminology was Relation, or Relationship, rather than Role.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > An event is either:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >   * A period of time (e.g. Jun 9, 2018, 12 PM - 1 PM)
>>>>> >   * The period of time that a statement, explicit or implicit, is
>>>>> true (e.g.
>>>>> >     My run this morning = Anthony isRunning True)
>>>>> >
>>>>> > To be clear, having the same statement exist with different periods
>>>>> of
>>>>> > validity can still be consistent:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >   * Anthony isRunning True (Jun 9, 2018, 12 PM - 1 PM)
>>>>> >   * Anthony isRunning True (Jun 8, 2018, 12 PM - 1 PM)
>>>>> >
>>>>> > If you look at temporal databases
>>>>> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_database> every fact has
>>>>> a valid
>>>>> > time <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valid_time> - the time period
>>>>> during
>>>>> > which the fact is true. Therefore if you reify any fact or
>>>>> relationship you
>>>>> > produce something with start or end times, therefore producing an
>>>>> event.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > In schema.org <http://schema.org>:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >  1. All Roles are reified relationships.
>>>>> >  2. Therefore all Roles have "valid times".
>>>>> >  3. Therefore all Roles have start or end times.
>>>>> >  4. Therefore all Roles are events.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > If the terminology was updated it would look like:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     Event
>>>>> >
>>>>> >         Relationship, or Relation (currently Role)
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Regarding Bill Murray, what is being modeled if not the fact that
>>>>> Bill
>>>>> > Murray was involved as an actor during its filming, and so for a
>>>>> period of time?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > And yep, I agree that you can define an entity and separately define
>>>>> an
>>>>> > event that represents its period of existence. But you can't do that
>>>>> for an
>>>>> > event, and in like fashion you can't do that for a statement either,
>>>>> it just
>>>>> > wouldn't make sense for either right?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Anthony
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:52 PM Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>>>>> > <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     Yes, many Roles in schema.org <http://schema.org> are events,
>>>>> and could
>>>>> >     be so modelled.  But not
>>>>> >     all, in my opinion, or at least not usefully.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     For example the relationship between Bill Murray and
>>>>> Ghostbusters is not an
>>>>> >     event.   It was, perhaps, initiated by a bunch of events, namely
>>>>> a
>>>>> >     sequence of
>>>>> >     acting performances that were captured and edited together to
>>>>> form the
>>>>> >     movie.
>>>>> >     However, that bunch of events is not the relationship being
>>>>> modelled.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     It's just like one might model people as their lives, i.e., an
>>>>> event that
>>>>> >     plays out (roughly) from conception to death.  But I find it
>>>>> useful to
>>>>> >     distinguish between a person and their life event.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     peter
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     On 06/06/2018 09:01 PM, Anthony Moretti wrote:
>>>>> >     > I agree that the first problem to do with strings can be
>>>>> solved by boxing
>>>>> >     > them into anonymous individuals. On the second problem to do
>>>>> with Roles I
>>>>> >     > agree that you can't do a simple "subjectOf" transform because
>>>>> Role is not
>>>>> >     > in the domain of "about", but maybe defining a new property
>>>>> such as
>>>>> >     > "participantIn" (domain Thing, range Role) and using it
>>>>> wherever a Role is
>>>>> >     > the object of a statement might keep about the same level of
>>>>> meaning (not
>>>>> >     > very good) but at least make it consistent OWL? So your
>>>>> example would be
>>>>> >     > transformed to:
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >     DJT : Person
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >         participantIn ? : Role
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >             spouse MM : Person
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >             startDate : 1993
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >             endDate : 1999
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >         participantIn ? : Role
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >             spouse IT : Person
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >             startDate : 1977
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >             endDate : 1992
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     > A more general solution using guidance
>>>>> >     > from https://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/ and with
>>>>> better meaning
>>>>> >     > might be:
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >     DJT : Person
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >         isSpouseFor ? : MarriageRelation
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >             spouse DJT : Person
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >             spouse MM : Person
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >             startDate : 1993
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >             endDate : 1999
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >         isSpouseFor ? : MarriageRelation
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >             spouse DJT : Person
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >             spouse IT : Person
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >             startDate : 1977
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >             endDate : 1992
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     > Your question about movie roles is also solved by this, for
>>>>> example:
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >     Bill Murray : Person
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >         isActorFor ? : PerformanceRelation
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >             actor Bill Murray : Person
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >             movie Ghostbusters : Movie
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >             characterName : Dr. Peter Venkman
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >             startDate : 1983
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >             endDate : 1984
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     > Class hierarchy:
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >     Event
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >         Relation
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >             MarriageRelation
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >             PerformanceRelation
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     > I think confusion might come from the many English meanings of
>>>>> "role":
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >     Type of role, e.g. Quarterback - no start or end dates.
>>>>> >     >     Instance of a role, e.g. 49ers quarterback 1979-1992 -
>>>>> potential start
>>>>> >     >     and end dates.
>>>>> >     >     Character, e.g. Hamlet - no start or end dates.
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     > So I'm still lead to believe that Role/Relation and several
>>>>> other types in
>>>>> >     > schema.org <http://schema.org> <http://schema.org> are
>>>>> subtypes of
>>>>> >     Event because their instances
>>>>> >     > always have potential start and end dates:
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >     Event
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >         Action
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >         Course
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >         Role/Relation
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >         Offer
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >         ParcelDelivery
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >         Trip
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     > Anybody else think this too? I'm a bit new to this so hope I'm
>>>>> not putting
>>>>> >     > something too strange out there!
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     > Anthony
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 3:20 PM Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>>>>> >     > <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>
>>>>> >     <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >     The short-circuiting of Role in schema.org <
>>>>> http://schema.org>
>>>>> >     <http://schema.org> is
>>>>> >     >     certainly outside of
>>>>> >     >     schema.org <http://schema.org> <http://schema.org>.   OWL
>>>>> has
>>>>> >     nothing that can do the right
>>>>> >     >     thing with the following
>>>>> >     >     schema.org <http://schema.org> <http://schema.org> data
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >     DJT : Person
>>>>> >     >       spouse ? : Role
>>>>> >     >                spouse MM : Person
>>>>> >     >                startDate : 1991
>>>>> >     >                endDate : 1999
>>>>> >     >       spouse ? : Role
>>>>> >     >                spouse IT : Person
>>>>> >     >                startDate : 1977
>>>>> >     >                endDate: 1992
>>>>> >     >       spouse MT : Person
>>>>> >     >     particularly in conjunction with
>>>>> >     >     spouse
>>>>> >     >       domain Person
>>>>> >     >       range Person
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >     Except that you could turn *all* property values (except
>>>>> maybe for
>>>>> >     those
>>>>> >     >     properties that are guaranteed never to have a Role
>>>>> intermediary) into
>>>>> >     >     events
>>>>> >     >     *before* they got to OWL.  This would look something like:
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >     DJT : Person
>>>>> >     >       spouseEvent ? : SpouseEvent
>>>>> >     >                     spouse MM : Person
>>>>> >     >                     startDate : 1991
>>>>> >     >                     endDate : 1999
>>>>> >     >       spouseEvent ? : SpouseEvent
>>>>> >     >                     spouse IT : Person
>>>>> >     >                     startDate : 1997
>>>>> >     >                     endDate : 1992
>>>>> >     >       spouseEvent ? : SpouseEvent
>>>>> >     >                     spouse MT : Person
>>>>> >     >     spouse range Person
>>>>> >     >            domain SpouseEvent
>>>>> >     >     spouseEvent range SpouseEvent
>>>>> >     >                 domain Person
>>>>> >     >     SpouseEvent sub Event
>>>>> >     >     startDate range Date
>>>>> >     >     endDate range Date
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >     Hah!  That turned out better than I thought it would, but
>>>>> I view the
>>>>> >     >     need for
>>>>> >     >     the transform as showing that schema.org <
>>>>> http://schema.org>
>>>>> >     <http://schema.org> Role is
>>>>> >     >     outside the purview of OWL
>>>>> >     >     because it requires major surgery to the underlying
>>>>> ontology (as
>>>>> >     opposed
>>>>> >     >     to a
>>>>> >     >     transform to handle "strings as things" that just replaces
>>>>> such
>>>>> >     strings
>>>>> >     >     with a
>>>>> >     >     blank node connected to the string by some sort of
>>>>> description
>>>>> >     property
>>>>> >     >     which
>>>>> >     >     doesn't require such surgery).
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >     And then what do you do about movie roles?  They shouldn't
>>>>> have start
>>>>> >     >     and end
>>>>> >     >     dates, or even have the possibility of start and end dates.
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >     peter
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >     On 06/06/2018 02:50 PM, Anthony Moretti wrote:
>>>>> >     >     > Peter, when you say "roles fall outside the purview of
>>>>> OWL" is
>>>>> >     it possible
>>>>> >     >     > that Role should be a subtype of Event, thus requiring
>>>>> no special
>>>>> >     >     treatment?
>>>>> >     >     > I say that because individual roles have potential start
>>>>> and end
>>>>> >     dates.
>>>>> >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     > If you continue that thinking you end up with several
>>>>> types that
>>>>> >     might be
>>>>> >     >     > considered subtypes of Event:
>>>>> >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     Event
>>>>> >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >         Action
>>>>> >     >     >         Course
>>>>> >     >     >         Role
>>>>> >     >     >         Offer
>>>>> >     >     >         Parcel delivery
>>>>> >     >     >         Trip
>>>>> >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     > Anthony
>>>>> >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 7:42 AM Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>>>>> >     >     > <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>
>>>>> >     <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>>
>>>>> >     >     <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:
>>>>> pfpschneider@gmail.com>
>>>>> >     <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     OK, it appears that you are trying to produce an OWL
>>>>> >     ontology that
>>>>> >     >     would
>>>>> >     >     >     accept schema.org <http://schema.org> <
>>>>> http://schema.org>
>>>>> >     <http://schema.org>
>>>>> >     >     documents that would accept
>>>>> >     >     >     unexceptional schema.org <http://schema.org>
>>>>> >     <http://schema.org> <http://schema.org>
>>>>> >     >     >     documents (under some loose definition of what makes
>>>>> an
>>>>> >     unexceptional
>>>>> >     >     >     schema.org <http://schema.org> <http://schema.org>
>>>>> >     <http://schema.org> document).
>>>>> >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     But you are running up against problems with
>>>>> "strings as
>>>>> >     things" and
>>>>> >     >     >     Roles.
>>>>> >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     Look at about and subjectOf.   Any use of a string
>>>>> as a
>>>>> >     value for
>>>>> >     >     about is
>>>>> >     >     >     going to make that string an instance of two OWL
>>>>> Classes
>>>>> >     (the range of
>>>>> >     >     >     about,
>>>>> >     >     >     which includes Text, and the domain of subjectOf,
>>>>> which
>>>>> >     doesn't).
>>>>> >     >     This
>>>>> >     >     >     is not
>>>>> >     >     >     permissible in OWL.
>>>>> >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     Using a role as a value for subjectOf will make the
>>>>> role node an
>>>>> >     >     instance of
>>>>> >     >     >     the domain of about, which doesn't include Role.
>>>>> Roles fall
>>>>> >     >     outside the
>>>>> >     >     >     purview of OWL.
>>>>> >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     What I think has to be done for "strings as things"
>>>>> is to
>>>>> >     >     preprocess them as
>>>>> >     >     >     an anonymous node with the string as the value of
>>>>> some
>>>>> >     description
>>>>> >     >     >     property.
>>>>> >     >     >     Roles need to be short-circuited and the role values
>>>>> >     eliminated.
>>>>> >     >     If the
>>>>> >     >     >     role
>>>>> >     >     >     values are to be retained then some sort of fancy
>>>>> >     reification has
>>>>> >     >     to be
>>>>> >     >     >     introduced.
>>>>> >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     But a lot of this is guesswork, as it is unclear
>>>>> just what
>>>>> >     "strings as
>>>>> >     >     >     things"
>>>>> >     >     >     and Roles mean in schema.org <http://schema.org>
>>>>> >     <http://schema.org>
>>>>> >     >     <http://schema.org>.   (I haven't looked
>>>>> >     >     >     closely at the use of URLs
>>>>> >     >     >     as stand-ins for objects but my guess is that that
>>>>> is similar to
>>>>> >     >     "strings as
>>>>> >     >     >     things".)
>>>>> >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     OWL makes a distinction between object and data
>>>>> values, and this
>>>>> >     >     distinction
>>>>> >     >     >     has to be carried through to the ontology, where
>>>>> there are
>>>>> >     classes and
>>>>> >     >     >     datatypes.  As far as I can tell Text should be a
>>>>> datatype.
>>>>> >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     peter
>>>>> >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     On 06/06/2018 07:09 AM, Richard Wallis wrote:
>>>>> >     >     >     > Just the fresh pair of experienced eyes I needed!
>>>>> - Thanks
>>>>> >     @Thomas
>>>>> >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     > @Danbri - not “wasting a lot of time agonising",
>>>>> in simple
>>>>> >     terms
>>>>> >     >     I’m just
>>>>> >     >     >     > [selfishly] trying to get a useful version to load
>>>>> >     into Protégé and
>>>>> >     >     >     > hopefully helping a few others at the same time.
>>>>> >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     > @Peter thanks for your thoughtful questions.  As
>>>>> you can see
>>>>> >     >     from the
>>>>> >     >     >     above
>>>>> >     >     >     > the prime simple objective is to get it visible
>>>>> >     in Protégé.  Beyond
>>>>> >     >     >     that, it
>>>>> >     >     >     > is to capture the class and property hierarchy of
>>>>> Schema.org
>>>>> >     >     including
>>>>> >     >     >     > the multiple domain/ranges of properties defined
>>>>> [In
>>>>> >     Schema.org]
>>>>> >     >     using
>>>>> >     >     >     > domainIncludes & rangeIncludes, in a way that a
>>>>> tool
>>>>> >     >     like Protégé can cope
>>>>> >     >     >     > with.  As for ranges, it includes the assumption
>>>>> that
>>>>> >     properties, in
>>>>> >     >     >     > addition to the defined range(s), also have Text,
>>>>> URL, and
>>>>> >     Role
>>>>> >     >     >     included in
>>>>> >     >     >     > their range.
>>>>> >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     > Once I’ve done it, I want to add the simple
>>>>> generating code to
>>>>> >     >     the Schema
>>>>> >     >     >     > scripts run at release time so that it can be kept
>>>>> up to date.
>>>>> >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     > ~Richard.
>>>>> >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     > Richard Wallis
>>>>> >     >     >     > Founder, Data Liberate
>>>>> >     >     >     > http://dataliberate.com
>>>>> >     >     >     > Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
>>>>> >     >     >     > Twitter: @rjw
>>>>> >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     > On 6 June 2018 at 14:45, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>>>>> >     >     >     <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:
>>>>> pfpschneider@gmail.com>
>>>>> >     <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>>
>>>>> >     >     <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:
>>>>> pfpschneider@gmail.com>
>>>>> >     <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>>>
>>>>> >     >     >     > <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com
>>>>> >     <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com> <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com
>>>>> >     <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>>
>>>>> >     >     <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:
>>>>> pfpschneider@gmail.com>
>>>>> >     <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     >     It's hard to say much about the file without
>>>>> knowing
>>>>> >     what it is
>>>>> >     >     >     supposed to
>>>>> >     >     >     >     capture.
>>>>> >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     >     It is supposed to capture the class and
>>>>> property
>>>>> >     hierarchy and
>>>>> >     >     >     property
>>>>> >     >     >     >     restrictions or schema.org <http://schema.org>
>>>>> >     <http://schema.org>
>>>>> >     >     <http://schema.org>
>>>>> >     >     >     <http://schema.org>, but not necessarily in a
>>>>> >     >     >     >     form compatible with RDFS
>>>>> >     >     >     >     or OWL?
>>>>> >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     >     Is it supposed to faithfully encode the model
>>>>> theory of
>>>>> >     >     schema.org <http://schema.org> <http://schema.org>
>>>>> >     >     >     <http://schema.org>
>>>>> >     >     >     >     <http://schema.org> in OWL?
>>>>> >     >     >     >     If so, where is the document for this theory?
>>>>> >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     >     Is it supposed to capture "strings as things"
>>>>> or Roles?
>>>>> >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     >     How does it view property domains and
>>>>> ranges?   As
>>>>> >     axioms?
>>>>> >     >     As strict
>>>>> >     >     >     >     constraints?  As soft constraints?
>>>>> >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     >     I would also move from rdf/xml to turtle,
>>>>> which is
>>>>> >     easier to
>>>>> >     >     write and
>>>>> >     >     >     >     easier
>>>>> >     >     >     >     to read.
>>>>> >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     >     peter
>>>>> >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     >     On 06/06/2018 05:05 AM, Richard Wallis wrote:
>>>>> >     >     >     >     > Calling folks with more OWL experience than
>>>>> me!
>>>>> >     >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     >     > The schema.org <http://schema.org>
>>>>> >     <http://schema.org> <http://schema.org>
>>>>> >     >     <http://schema.org>
>>>>> >     >     >     <http://schema.org> site has an OWL
>>>>> >     >     >     >     definition file that has
>>>>> >     >     >     >     > not been maintained since April
>>>>> >     >     >     2014: http://schema.org/docs/schemaorg.owl
>>>>> >     >     >     <http://schema.org/docs/schemaorg.owl>.
>>>>> >     >     >     >     > Also the structure and syntax of the file
>>>>> needs some
>>>>> >     >     attention.
>>>>> >     >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     >     > To help with the occasional questions about
>>>>> accessing
>>>>> >     >     processable
>>>>> >     >     >     >     > representations of the vocabulary; to
>>>>> attempt to
>>>>> >     close an
>>>>> >     >     issue
>>>>> >     >     >     (#1611
>>>>> >     >     >     >     > <
>>>>> https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1611
>>>>> >     >     >     >
>>>>> >      <https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1611>>); and to
>>>>> >     >     >     help with a
>>>>> >     >     >     >     > personal project, I have had a look at
>>>>> producing an
>>>>> >     up to
>>>>> >     >     date,
>>>>> >     >     >     improved,
>>>>> >     >     >     >     > maintainable version of the file.
>>>>> >     >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     >     > My first attempt can be downloaded/viewed
>>>>> >     >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     here:
>>>>> https://s3.amazonaws.com/rjwPublicData/public/schemaorg.owl
>>>>> >     >     >     >
>>>>> >      <https://s3.amazonaws.com/rjwPublicData/public/schemaorg.owl>
>>>>> >     >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     >     > I am looking for comments, suggestions, and
>>>>> help
>>>>> >     around a few
>>>>> >     >     >     aspects of
>>>>> >     >     >     >     > this work in progress:
>>>>> >     >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     >     >   * Is it generally ‘a good owl file’
>>>>> >     >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     >     >   * Should it contain more/less info about
>>>>> >     the vocabulary and
>>>>> >     >     >     its terms
>>>>> >     >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     >     >   * Specifically with reference to
>>>>> domainIncludes and
>>>>> >     >     rangeInclude -
>>>>> >     >     >     >     mapped
>>>>> >     >     >     >     >     to rdfs:domain & rdfs:range with
>>>>> >     owl:unionOfcollections:
>>>>> >     >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     >     >       o Is this the best/only way to
>>>>> represent multiple
>>>>> >     >     domain &
>>>>> >     >     >     >     ranges for
>>>>> >     >     >     >     >         an objectproperty?
>>>>> >     >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     >     >       o Have I got the syntax correct?
>>>>> >     >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     >     >   * Several people use Protégé
>>>>> >     >     <https://protege.stanford.edu/> as a
>>>>> >     >     >     >     tool for
>>>>> >     >     >     >     >     this kind of effort - I am trying to
>>>>> identify
>>>>> >     what syntax,
>>>>> >     >     >     will enable
>>>>> >     >     >     >     >     this tool to recognise the multiple
>>>>> >     domain/ranges when
>>>>> >     >     importing
>>>>> >     >     >     >     this file.
>>>>> >     >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     >     > If anyone out there with more OWL experience
>>>>> than me
>>>>> >     (not
>>>>> >     >     >     difficult),
>>>>> >     >     >     >     could
>>>>> >     >     >     >     > spend a few minutes taking a look at this and
>>>>> >     commenting, it
>>>>> >     >     >     would be
>>>>> >     >     >     >     > greatly appreciated.
>>>>> >     >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     >     > ~Richard
>>>>> >     >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     >     > Richard Wallis
>>>>> >     >     >     >     > Founder, Data Liberate
>>>>> >     >     >     >     > http://dataliberate.com
>>>>> >     >     >     >     > Linkedin:
>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
>>>>> >     >     >     >     <http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis>
>>>>> >     >     >     >     > Twitter: @rjw
>>>>> >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >
>>>>> >     >     >
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>

Received on Monday, 11 June 2018 16:32:21 UTC