- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 21:36:15 -0400
- 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 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 >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > -- > 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