Re: Interoperability Framework and Vocabulary

Dear Jeff,

> After some thoughts, it seems to me that there is quite a connection
> between the interoperability framework and the vocabulary deliverable.

Yes, there is certainly strong links :-)

> The goal of the former one is to provide an integrated set of vocabulary
> within a simple extensible framework. In fact, an integrated set of
> vocabulary is
> the most needed component in the framework.

Hummmm, I would not say that. From my perspective, the goal of the former is
to show how to use together different vocabularies in the context of a
specific use case even though these vocabularies have been made for different
purposes. So it is rather, for practical applications, what motivate the needs
to use several vocabularies and how combine them.

> The simplest form of
> integration is to assert samePropertyAs; i.e., we should be able to say
> property P1 in standard S1 is the same as the property P2 in standard S2.

He he he!!! But that works only in the easy case where you assume that your
vocabularies strongly overlap. This is unfirtunately now always our case. We
rather use different vocabularies that complement each other ... so not really
"owl:sameAs" or "owl:equivalentClass" or "owl:samePropertyAs" or ....

> Given the use cases that we have, I wonder how hard it is to identify such
> equivalent relations.

Oscar did that to some extent with the music ontologies. Is it what you have
in mind?

> Furthermore, given the use cases, I wonder if there
> are any other cross standard/vocabulary relations that we have to handle
> in the simple framework.

I don't get this question :-(
My 2 c.
Best regards.


RaphaŽl Troncy
CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science),
Kruislaan 413, 1098 SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
e-mail: &
Tel: +31 (0)20 - 592 4093
Fax: +31 (0)20 - 592 4312

Received on Wednesday, 21 February 2007 17:53:26 UTC