Re: beyond 'formal' relations: describing relations between scientific and non-scientific material

Pat
since we are on the subject...

I have seen some interesting work done in translating existing system
documentation and even natural language texts directly to ontology
languagages (UML to OWL) for example, and I seem to understand that some of
this direct translation/mapping to OWL is not so straightforward (
impossible?).
 Would some of the reasons below contribute to such difficulties?

 It feels a pity that so much good knowledge that already exists cannot be
reused on the web because of an OWL Knowledge representation bottleneck

There must be a way of geetting around that


PDM


On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 8:32 PM, <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:

> Pat
>
> thanks, yes, it helps, by getting into the heart of the discussion
>
>
>  However, this is only a convention, and there is no fundamental logical
>> requirement why this must be done: OWL-Full, RDF and Common Logic all do not
>> make any strong distinction between relations and other entities.
>>
>
> but somehow, I (and perhaps others) see the lack of such a fundamental
> disctinction and knowledge representation level the cause of confusion,
> possible brittleness, at at user/pragmatic level, maybe even  a cognitive
> barrier
>
> (I darn cant get my mind around simple things such as domain/ range
> definitions, I have to think three or four times at what I am doing /trying
> to do cause its awkward)
>
> for those who were brought up with data/modelling techniquest such as E/R
> such distinctions may be central  although there is flexibility as to what
> to model as what,  and properties are what we call attributes, I think
>
> I wonder if at some point the OWL community is willing to take feedback
> from users and engineers from different backgrounds, so that perhaps future
> generations of web ontology languages can be less counter intuitive and
> satisfy
> different modelling requirements/criteria
>
> or at least, start thinking about it....
>
> cheers
> pdm
>
>
>
>> Hope this helps
>>
>> Pat Hayes
>>
>> , I would be intersted in a clarification of why/how is that so
>>
>>
>> Paola
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Dennis - UT <dv.eprints@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> We are currently working on a repository for OAI ORE resource maps (
>>> http://www.openarchives.org/ore/1.0/toc). In this system we are trying
>>> to describe relations between scientific publications and other material
>>> (both scientific and non-scientific). To do this we are planning to use
>>> several (RDF) vocabularies / ontologies.
>>>
>>> A question is: how to cope with diversity in scientific disciplines and
>>> communication on the one hand and standardizing relation descriptions when
>>> aggregating publications about a certain topic? Vocabularies now available
>>> (FOAF, DCterms, etc) mainly restrict to formal relations and do not include
>>> relations concerning the content in a more detailed way than for instance
>>> 'dc:subject'. This may be the consequence of the diversity in scientific
>>> semantics. Is there any literature/article about this issue?
>>>
>>> An example case is describing relations between scientific publications
>>> and their 'application'. For example: a publication proposes certain
>>> changes, government policy makers later decide to create actual policies
>>> based on this information. So far we didn’t find any existing solution to
>>> describe such relations. Suggestions on existing vocabularies to describe /
>>> annotate such relations are very welcome, thanks!
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Dennis
>>> University of Twente
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Paola Di Maio,
****************************************
Forthcoming
IEEE/DEST 09 Collective Intelligence Track (deadline extended)

i-Semantics 2009, 2 - 4 September 2009, Graz, Austria.
www.i-semantics.tugraz.at

SEMAPRO 2009, Malta
http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/CfPSEMAPRO09.html
**************************************************
Mae Fah Luang Child Protection Project, Chiang Rai Thailand