W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > January 2006

Fwd: reuse of part-whole ontology in WSDL RDF mapping

From: Alan Rector <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:47:01 +0000
Message-Id: <AF6BC124-247C-43DF-99D7-E3B47DF02962@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Debbie McGinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
To: Chris Welty <welty@us.ibm.com>, best-practice list <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

What's the state of this?  I think you have the token.  I could take  
it back and schedule stuff for after mid Feb if there is a problem.   
I am full up until then.



PS - there seems to have been some issue with this thread getting to  
the SWBP list.  If it doesn't end up on the list, please let me know.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
> Date: 21 January 2006 00:37:45 GMT
> To: Alan Rector <Alan.Rector@manchester.ac.uk>
> Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org, rector@cs.man.ac.uk, welty@us.ibm.com
> Subject: reuse of part-whole ontology in WSDL RDF mapping
> Alan, thanks for the info, I'm glad the part-whole ontology might move
> on. I expect we will reuse it in some way in the WSDL RDF mapping, so
> you can count on us for a review as well. 8-)
> Can you please give me an estimate of the timing for this ontology?  
> What
> is the target status for the ontology? And especially, if we move the
> WSDL RDF mapping to last call around the W3C TP in March, do you  
> expect
> the part-whole ontology to keep at most a step behind us, so that  
> we can
> reuse it without slowing down our already delayed deliverable? 8-)
> And I have a guidance question as well:
> We have currently a set of classes (e.g. Description, Interface,
> Binding) and a set of properties (e.g. interface, binding) that are  
> used
> both for pointing from Description to its parts Interface and Binding,
> but the "interface" property is also used to point from binding to the
> corresponding interface (where there is no part-of relationship).  
> So our
> hierarchy is Description at the top which contains Interfaces and
> Bindings (among others), and Bindings point to Interfaces (one  
> each) as
> well.
> In order for us to reuse the part-whole ontology, the links between
> Description and the lower level of Interface and Binding must indicate
> the is_part_of_directly relationship. I can see 3 different ways in
> which we can do this:
>      1. when mapping from WSDL (XML) to RDF, we will generate both
>         "interface" and "is_part_of_directly" between Description and
>         Interface (and similar pairs of statements for the other  
> part-of
>         relationships)
>      2. in places where a part-of relationship happens, we will  
> replace
>         the current named properties with is_part_of_directly, and we
>         will keep our named properties (e.g. interface) to point from
>         Binding to Interface
>      3. we will split "interface" (and the same way for similar
>         properties) into two properties - "contains_interface" and
>         "interface", the first being subproperty of  
> is_part_of_directly,
>         the second used where "interface" is used currently but  
> without
>         the part-of meaning
> I hope this makes sense. Personally, I don't like either of the  
> options
> - the first one shows no relationship between "interface" and
> "is_part_of_directly"; the second makes any query for all  
> Interfaces go
> one level deeper (to the type of the object of  
> is_part_of_directly), and
> the third introduces the two properties, both of which should  
> really be
> a single "interface".
> Do you have any comments on which approach might be preferable or if
> I indeed missed something better?
> Best regards,
> Jacek
> On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 10:04 +0000, Alan Rector wrote:
>> Jacek
>> As far as I know the note is ready to go modulo a few minor tweaks.
>> I think Chris Welty 'has the token'.  There was a delay when his
>> machine failed at the Face-to-Face in November, and I suspect
>> holidays and other things have meant the document hasn't emerged.
>> If there is a problem for Chris, I can probably make the few
>> necessary changes next month, but he had some alternative examples in
>> mind.
>> No changes in substance are planned.
>> Regards
>> Alan
>> On 18 Jan 2006, at 19:20, Jacek Kopecky wrote:
>>> Dear SWBP WG, 8-)
>>> within WS-Description WG we are working on an RDF mapping for the  
>>> WSDL
>>> components, and we are considering using your Part-whole ontology  
>>> [1].
>>> Can you please let me know about the current status of this  
>>> particular
>>> ontology and your plans for it?
>>> We will possibly want to go to Last Call with the RDF mapping
>>> around the
>>> Tech Plenary in March, so if the part-whole ontology is planned  
>>> to be
>>> delivered significantly later (if, indeed, ever), we would not be  
>>> able
>>> to reuse it.
>>> Best regards,
>>> Jacek Kopecky
>>> [1] http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~rector/swbp/simple-part-whole/simple-
>>> part-whole-relations-v0-2.html
>> -----------------------
>> Alan Rector
>> Professor of Medical Informatics
>> Department of Computer Science
>> University of Manchester
>> Manchester M13 9PL, UK
>> TEL +44 (0) 161 275 6188/6149
>> FAX +44 (0) 161 275 6204
>> www.cs.man.ac.uk/mig
>> www.clinical-esciences.org
>> www.co-ode.org

Alan Rector
Professor of Medical Informatics
Department of Computer Science
University of Manchester
Manchester M13 9PL, UK
TEL +44 (0) 161 275 6188/6149
FAX +44 (0) 161 275 6204

Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2006 22:25:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:16 UTC