Re: [WNET] Schemas online

Hi Elisa, Jennifer,

As Aldo mentions the problem is probably that the schemas state that 
each owl:Datatype/ObjectProperty is also an rdf:Property. Quirky maybe, 
but not prohibited :) I also heard that there are some problems with owl 
imports, but they are not used in the WordNet schemas.

Thanks for mentioning this,
Mark.

Elisa F. Kendall wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> 
> We have had similar problems with OWL ontologies generated by our UML 
> tool validating/loading in most of
> the tools you've listed, including Protege beta 3.1, but not in 3.2.  We 
> have not tried them in Triple20, but we
> do load them successfully in Pellet and RacerPro.
> I've reported this to Jennifer at SMI, who indicated that the behavior 
> around OWL imports in Protege-OWL
> has changed recently, with contributions from new collaborators from the 
> University of Manchester who
> have provided the imports code.  I've copied Jennifer in hopes that she 
> will forward the links and issue
> to the appropriate developers.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Elisa
> 
> Mark van Assem wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The schemas for WordNet Basic and Full are online [1]. They 
>> validate/load in the W3C RDF Validator [2], the WonderWeb OWL 
>> validator [3], Triple20 [4] and SWOOP [5]. They do not load in Protege 
>> Full 3.2 Beta [6], for a reason I do not understand.
>>
>> A few remaining questions/comments:
>>
>> - I used XML Schema Datatypes also for e.g. the gloss and lexicalForm 
>> properties, but I can recall that when properties have an XSD as range 
>> then the actual glosses and lexical forms are not supplied with the 
>> XML lang attribute. If this is correct, I should probably change to 
>> rdfs:Literal?
>>
>> - there are two properties that are subPropertyOf rdfs:label / 
>> rdfs:comment. The OWL validator complains that the rdfs properties 
>> should be DatatypeProperties. Is this an issue?
>>
>> - I have not cleaned the rdfs:comments in the schema files yet.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mark.
>>
>> [1]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/wn/wn20/schemas/
>> [2]http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/
>> [3]http://phoebus.cs.man.ac.uk:9999/OWL/Validator
>> [4]http://www.swi-prolog.org/packages/Triple20/
>> [5]http://www.mindswap.org/2004/SWOOP/
>> [6]http://protege.stanford.edu/download/registered.html
>>
>>
>> Mark van Assem wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> A new version of the WordNet draft can be found at [1] for 
>>> consideration for First Working Draft status at tomorrow's telecon.
>>>
>>> The main differences with the previous [2] draft are (a) new proposal 
>>> for URIs as discussed on the list; (b) all material on indirection 
>>> and versioning is moved to the Issues list.
>>>
>>> The RDF will be made available a.s.a.p. when the conversion program 
>>> has been adapted to the changes in the Draft and a service has been 
>>> set up at the W3C to serve CBD's for the WN URIs as described in the 
>>> Draft.
>>>
>>> With regards,
>>> Mark.
>>>
>>> [1]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wn-conversion-20062304
>>> [2]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wn-conversion-20060403
>>>
>>

Received on Thursday, 11 May 2006 06:54:47 UTC