W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > April 2009

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

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 21:36:15 -0400
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0904031836u3e153eeajf36eab3c61b5c1fe@mail.gmail.com>
To: paola.dimaio@gmail.com
Cc: Dennis - UT <dv.eprints@gmail.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 1:25 PM,  <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation Alan
> I may get back to you offlist if I need backing in working out the domain
> range pairs on some examples I am trying to work out

OK.
Best,
Alan

>
>
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> 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 didnít 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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 Saturday, 4 April 2009 01:37:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:11 UTC