Re: Fwd: triples/ toward RDFizing the schema

> Guido
>


>
> >>In the meanwhile, I would suggest getting the XMI 1.4 serialization of
> the current schema,
>         >how do we get that
>
>          Depends on the tool, I'm familiar with eclipse UML2 tools and
> Rational SA, maybe I can help you?


thanks, it may come handy



>
>
> >. Formality does not guarantee the quality of the conceptualization,
> though ..
>

yes, thats precisely what I Intended

>
>
> >I am not sure how our ontology should model/represent/express  the
> information flow
>
> If the ontology is intended for information exchange -- this is my
> understanding -- then maybe we can drop the information flow part, unless
> systems are not supposed to talk about their talking, which is logically
> cumbersome however .. :-)


I dont understand this, I would say that if the ontology is intended for
information exchange,
the modelling the information flow is important

we seem to arrive to different conclusions :-)

thanks for the input, and lets see how it goes!

best

p

>
>
> Cordiali Saluti, Best Regards,
>
> Guido Vetere
> Manager & Research Coordinator, IBM Center for Advanced Studies Rome
> -----------------------
> IBM Italia S.p.A.
> via Sciangai 53, 00144 Rome,
> Italy
> -----------------------
> mail:     gvetere@it.ibm.com
> phone: +39 06 59662137
> mobile: +39 335 7454658
>
>
>
>
>   *paola.dimaio@gmail.com*
>
> 07/10/2008 13.49
>    To
> Guido Vetere/Italy/IBM@IBMIT  cc
> public-xg-eiif <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>, public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org
> Subject
> Re: Fwd: triples/ toward RDFizing the schema
>
>
>
>
> Thanks Guido
>
> I presume what you suggest below is going to be pretty straighforward to do
> , and in fact any ontology editor will probably do, considering I am
> supposed to be learning the stuff, I ll have a go at some point. (
> procrastinating)
>
> however, putting a schema into rdf/owl is indeed the most trivial part of
> creating  maintaining using an ontology
>
>
> In the meanwhile, I would suggest getting the XMI 1.4 serialization of the
> current schema,
>
> how do we get that
>
> import it into Protégé (not necessarily 3.3) and see what happens.
>
> sounds fun
>
> If the system doesn't crash, at the end you'll get a legal OWL file. Then
> mabye you will have to fix something by hand.
>
> expected
>
> and what happens then? assuming we generate at some point a valid owl file
> of our
> schema, and we make it accessible,  how is it going to be used? how can we
> experiment with it?
>
> I am personally still keen on html/xml because that's what our content/data
> exchange systems (standard cms) can work with at the moment, so for me the
> ontology is a way of making sure that the underlying  representation schema
> is sound m basically I use the ontology to support a  model of the world
> that would support the required functinality
>
> But I guess as we are at it, we may as well go all the way and put
> something out
> that we can play with til we know better
>
>
>
> As for the message exchange protocol, I'm not sure that 'ontologizing' it
> is really needed -- woudn't be part of the middleware?
>
> I am not sure how our ontology should model/represent/express  the
> information flow, lets think about it a bit, but whatever needs to be 'not
> casual'  I think, as at the moment is currently this information flow that
> fails (systems do not support the right information flow) and possibly one
> of the things that external representation can fix. I dont think we need to
> ontologise it, but I think we need to make sure that our schema makes the
> data flow as efficient and as transparent as possible, and the ontology can
> help us verify that
> (I think)
>
> thanks a lot G
>
> pdm
>
>
>
>
> Cordiali Saluti, Best Regards,
>
> Guido Vetere
> Manager & Research Coordinator, IBM Center for Advanced Studies Rome
> -----------------------
> IBM Italia S.p.A.
> via Sciangai 53, 00144 Rome,
> Italy
> -----------------------
> mail:     *gvetere@it.ibm.com* <gvetere@it.ibm.com>
> phone: +39 06 59662137
> mobile: +39 335 7454658
>
>
>
>   *paola.dimaio@gmail.com* <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
> Sent by: *public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org* <public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org>
>
> 07/10/2008 04.04
>
>   To
> Guido Vetere/Italy/IBM@IBMIT  cc
> public-xg-eiif <*public-xg-eiif@w3.org* <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>>  Subject
> Re: Fwd: triples/ toward RDFizing the schema
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Guido and all
> i am having  two additional thoughts that I would like to know what you
> think of
>
> 1) if our UML is not optimized, and the relationships are not streamlined,
> as in the case of our UML
> I doubt that an ontology that would be derived from it with an automated
> process would be correct
>
> so - correct me if I am wrong  - in order to feed the uml diagram to
> protege and obtain the desired output
> (that is a model that can work and not break) we need to do a bit more work
> on those relations
>
> however, if we work out the triples, we can use them to help us
> improve/rationalize our UML
>
> 2) an important thing that our ontology does not yet model/address is the
> message exchange protocol
> I assume all these relationships correspond to equivalent data/information
> flows, is that correct?
> if so, i wonder what protocols should suppor them (EDXl comes to mind,
> being discussed in parallel) and when would we have to think about it
>
> best
>
> PDM
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 4:48 PM, <*paola.dimaio@gmail.com*<paola.dimaio@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> Dear Guido
> thanks for input
> I am familiar with Protege, in fact I have heard of Protege Light or
> something, and that the recent versions are easier to use
>
> I have been looking forward (and dreading at the same time) the day when I
> would have to learn
> how to use it (I am a bit averse to doing too practical things)
>
> However, that day is coming near as I will be attending the summer school
> at ASWC precisely with the intent
> of getting down to that, as it obviously something that I -we_ really need
> to work with.  I heard also Jena is good
>
> in fact, i think Protege allows for collaborative ontology editing (can you
> confirm?)
> and this is something that we should be working on together (we hope that
> would include you as you sem to have a sense of what we are trying to do
> here)
>
> So, let me ask,
>
> 1) what is the best way to work collaboratively on an ontology using
> Protege (or other tool), do we set up and run it on a server that everyone
> can access, or do we each download an instance on our desktops and let it
> synchronize when we have updates?
>
> 2) considering this is a collaborative ontology building exercise (multiple
> stakeholders) , is there any other tool/environment that would best support
> our task
>
> 3) Mandana, are you up for working together on this, anyone else has skills
> or would like to acquire such skills
>
>
> thanks
>
> pdm
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Guido Vetere <*gvetere@it.ibm.com*<gvetere@it.ibm.com>>
> wrote:
>
> To start, have a look to Protégé *http://protege.stanford.edu/*<http://protege.stanford.edu/> It is not an industrial tool but it's quite stable, is easy to learn and
> supported by a vast community.
> There's a plenty of plugins to extend Protégé basic functionalities,e.g. to
> import UML 1.4 Diagrams through XMI.
> In fact, OWL shares a number of basic modelling principles with OO
> languages: classes, properties, inclusions, etc. Then, depending on the
> expressiveness you need, you have other formal notions such as restrictions,
> disjointness, and so on. A reference on this matter is the *Description
> Logic Handbook*<http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521781760>, where you can go in depth with the theory behind OWL if needed. At the end
> you'll get RDF triples based on RDF Schema + OWL Schema, i.e. you'll be
> using standard (formal) properties with a clear semantics, all blessed by
> W3C! :-)
>
> Cordiali Saluti, Best Regards,
>
> Guido Vetere
> Manager & Research Coordinator, IBM Center for Advanced Studies Rome
> -----------------------
> IBM Italia S.p.A.
> via Sciangai 53, 00144 Rome,
> Italy
> -----------------------
> mail:     *gvetere@it.ibm.com* <gvetere@it.ibm.com>
> phone: +39 06 59662137
> mobile: +39 335 7454658
>
>
>   *paola.dimaio@gmail.com* <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
> Sent by: *public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org* <public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org>
>
> 06/10/2008 17.35
>
>   To
> Guido Vetere/Italy/IBM@IBMIT  cc
> public-xg-eiif <*public-xg-eiif@w3.org* <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>>, *
> public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org* <public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org>  Subject
> Re: Fwd: triples/ toward RDFizing the schema
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes, Guido
>
>
> sure!
> Wouldn't we have to work out the triples anyway? Please outline your
> suggested method
> thanks!
> cheers
> PDM
>
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 8:01 AM, Guido Vetere <*gvetere@it.ibm.com*<gvetere@it.ibm.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Paola,
> maybe is a silly question, but since we are developing an ontology and we
> like RDF triples, why don't we simply use OWL? We would get DL formal
> semantics and a plenty of OS tools for editing (e.g. Protégé) and reasoning
> (e.g. Pellet).
>
> Cordiali Saluti, Best Regards,
>
> Guido Vetere
> Manager & Research Coordinator, IBM Center for Advanced Studies Rome
> -----------------------
> IBM Italia S.p.A.
> via Sciangai 53, 00144 Rome,
> Italy
> -----------------------
> mail:     *gvetere@it.ibm.com* <gvetere@it.ibm.com>
> phone: +39 06 59662137
> mobile: +39 335 7454658
>
>   *paola.dimaio@gmail.com* <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
> Sent by: *public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org* <public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org>
>
> 05/10/2008 04.36
>
>   To
> public-xg-eiif <*public-xg-eiif@w3.org* <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>>  cc
>   Subject
> Fwd: triples/ toward RDFizing the schema
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Craig, thanks for reply
> I find the comments below educational (learning something)
> so I am forwarding them to the list to see if someone has something to add
>
> yes, CAPS are ugly, only here used to distinguish S/O from p
>
>
>
> cheers, PDM
>
> and no, I dont have a cat !
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: C H <*craighubleyca@yahoo.com* <craighubleyca@yahoo.com>>
> Date: Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 9:59 AM
> Subject: Re: triples/ toward RDFizing the schema
> To: *paola.dimaio@gmail.com* <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
>
>
> Feel free to forward this if a discussion ensues.  No need to bug the
> list with it otherwise.
>
> > I am startedt to think of the schema being worked out by
> > Mandana as triples
>
> Wise.  Astonishingly good tools exist for manipulating RDF triples.
>
> > can someone correct the assertion?
> >
> > SUBJECT predicate OBJECT assumption:
> >
> > (whereby SUBJECT and OBJECT correspond to the entities in
> > the schema, and the predicates to the relationships)
> > would this be right?
>
> Yes.  Another word for predicate is "relation" as in
> entity-relationship diagram.  Generally the word "relation" is
> reserved for the very strict style of table used in relational DBs and
> the word "relationship" for ERDs which are much much looser.
> Predicates are somewhere in between in the scale of strictness - a
> wide range in between from pure logical predicate to vague assertions
> piled up in something like semantic mediawiki (a tag scheme that
> embeds RDF data into mediawiki pages, extraordinarily useful)
>
> > question (do we have to model all the triples for the schema to work?)
>
> No, but any kind of automated processing will stop dead if you don't
> reduce all the relations to three-folded SPO
> (subject/predicate/object) before you ask the robot lawyers to take
> over.  They may do very strange things like sue your cat if you have
> failed to reduce all the constraints to something they understand.
> Try not to give them their own expense account, either - robot lawyers
> can run up quite a bar bill at the gas bar.
>
> By robot lawyers I mean RDF reasoners and so on, of course.  What else?
>
> > AFFECTEDPERSON needs RESOURCE
>
> Suggests others like "affected_person needs refuge_instructions" -
> this ALL-CAPS thing is bad news, it prevents us from writing readable
> sentences.  When an [[affected_person needs refuge instructions]] it
> would be best to just be able to write it like that because then
> humans and machines can both read it with no translation (assuming _
> equates to space when rendered).
>
> > ORGANISATION has CONTACTPERSON
> >
> > ORGANISATiON has CAPACITY is RESOURCE (N TUPLE)
> >
> > RESOURCE has TIME/LOCATION/OTHER ATTRIBUTE
>
> While you're using them right here, be careful with preposition predicates.
> An "is" and "has" must be used very specifically, usually by "is" we
> mean "is-a-kind-of" and by "has" we mean "has-characteristic" or
> "has-component" or "has-resource" (different things, a characteristic
> is an inseparable attribute, a component is required for it to work
> properly and a resource is something it can share or give away without
> failing).
>
> Consider also the time relationships required to deal with a temporal
> database.  Korzybski said "is" and the verb "to be" were questionable
> at best and could mean too many things, crossing the actual
> operational time bindings we use in practice.  In real reality, we are
> *remembering* or *explaining* the past which is different from
> *sensing* or *comparing* the present state to other things present,
> both of which are different from *envisioning* or *predicting* the
> future.  The use of "is" and "are" in that sentence is the most basic
> and if you don't respect that distinction you get into trouble - for
> instance, confusing historical data with some future projection in
> order to get some entirely bogus present "trend line".
>
> (where economics goes wrong...)
>
> > does this make sense to anyone on this list, or am I
> > enterering another planet? etc etc
>
> Makes perfect sense to me.  But I may have to ask a robot lawyer.  I
> hope you don't have a cat.
>
> > Paola Di Maio
> > School of IT
> > *www.mfu.ac.th* <http://www.mfu.ac.th/>
> > *********************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Paola Di Maio
> School of IT*
> **www.mfu.ac.th* <http://www.mfu.ac.th/>
> *********************************************
>
>
>
>
> IBM Italia S.p.A.
> Sede Legale: Circonvallazione Idroscalo - 20090 Segrate (MI)
> Cap. Soc. euro 361.550.000
> C. F. e Reg. Imprese MI 01442240030 - Partita IVA 10914660153
> Società con Azionista Unico
> Società soggetta all'attività di direzione e coordinamento di International
> Business Machines Corporation
>
> (Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated otherwise above)
>
>
>
> --
> Paola Di Maio
> School of IT*
> **www.mfu.ac.th* <http://www.mfu.ac.th/>
> *********************************************
>
>
> IBM Italia S.p.A.
> Sede Legale: Circonvallazione Idroscalo - 20090 Segrate (MI)
> Cap. Soc. euro 361.550.000
> C. F. e Reg. Imprese MI 01442240030 - Partita IVA 10914660153
> Società con Azionista Unico
> Società soggetta all'attività di direzione e coordinamento di International
> Business Machines Corporation
>
> (Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated otherwise above)
>
> IBM Italia S.p.A.
> Sede Legale: Circonvallazione Idroscalo - 20090 Segrate (MI)
> Cap. Soc. euro 361.550.000
> C. F. e Reg. Imprese MI 01442240030 - Partita IVA 10914660153
> Società con Azionista Unico
> Società soggetta all'attività di direzione e coordinamento di International
> Business Machines Corporation
>
> (Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated otherwise above)
>
>
>
> --
> Paola Di Maio
> School of IT*
> **www.mfu.ac.th* <http://www.mfu.ac.th/>
> *********************************************
>
>
>
> --
> Paola Di Maio
> School of IT*
> **www.mfu.ac.th* <http://www.mfu.ac.th/>
> *********************************************
>
>
> IBM Italia S.p.A.
> Sede Legale: Circonvallazione Idroscalo - 20090 Segrate (MI)
> Cap. Soc. euro 361.550.000
> C. F. e Reg. Imprese MI 01442240030 - Partita IVA 10914660153
> Società con Azionista Unico
> Società soggetta all'attività di direzione e coordinamento di International
> Business Machines Corporation
>
> (Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated otherwise above)
>
>
>
> --
> Paola Di Maio
> School of IT*
> **www.mfu.ac.th* <http://www.mfu.ac.th/>
> *********************************************
>
>
> IBM Italia S.p.A.
> Sede Legale: Circonvallazione Idroscalo - 20090 Segrate (MI)
> Cap. Soc. euro 361.550.000
> C. F. e Reg. Imprese MI 01442240030 - Partita IVA 10914660153
> Società con Azionista Unico
> Società soggetta all'attività di direzione e coordinamento di International
> Business Machines Corporation
>
> (Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated otherwise above)
>



-- 
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
*********************************************