- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 08:24:03 -0400
- To: paola.dimaio@gmail.com
- Cc: Dennis - UT <dv.eprints@gmail.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 2:57 PM, <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote: > Dennis > > I am also researching relations > > > I have found reading about the following useful > > 1. lexical relations > 2. OBO Foundry ontology of relations > > some excerpts from Azamats posts and other writings > http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2009-02/msg00315.html > > however I am much puzzled by the fact that relations are considere as > 'properties' of class > while in my view , or as in 'entity/relationship' representatio > relations are a different primitive type (canonical class?) by themselves, > I would be intersted in a clarification of why/how is that so Hello Paola, I think the distinct views are the difference between modeling of the language and the interpretation of what it says. So in OWL a property can be considered related to a class in the sense that there are predicates that are used in the encoding. As an example consider "domain" which relates a property P to a class C. One might consider this representation to be the "information model". However the interpretation of a property is a pairs of entities that are related by the property. So the "domain" relation encodes the semantics that the first element of all such pairs that are the interpretation of the property P have type C. -Alan > > > 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 > > > >
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2009 12:25:02 UTC