Re: The annotation dilemma?

Hi everbody,

today someone shows me the way how I can apply Named Graphs 
(N3-formulae?) to the annotation dilemma problem ;)

The Named Graph should replace the associations, which are made in an 
association statement, e.g.


ex:FunkyPlaylist a pbo:Playlist ;
	sim:association ex:ZazisAssociation ;
	sim:association ex:BobsAssociationInUse ;
	...	.

original association statement:

       rdf:type sim:Association ;
       dc:creator <> ;
       ao:genre "Funk"^^xsd:string ;
       ao:mood "party"^^xsd:string ;
       ao:occasion "my birthday party 2008"^^xsd:string .

to association statement with a Named Graph:

       rdf:type sim:Association ;
       dc:creator <> ;
       ao:associates {
       		ex:FunkyPlaylist ao:genre "Funk"^^xsd:string ;
       			ao:mood "party"^^xsd:string ;
       			ao:occasion "my birthday party 2008"^^xsd:string . } .

For the simple association statement use case this would probably work 
fine. However, I'm a bit unsure, whether I can really reuse 
ex:FunkyPlaylist in the Named Graph, but that's what I'm intending to do ;)
It is now a bit more difficult, if I like to apply Named Graphs to 
reusable association statements, .e.g.

original reusable association statement:

       rdf:type sim:Association ;
       dc:creator <> ;
       ao:genre ex:Funk ;
       ao:mood "happy"^^xsd:string ;
       ao:occasion "good feeling music"^^xsd:string .

       rdf:type ao:LikeableAssociation ;
               ex:BobsAssociation ;
       ao:likeminded <> .

to reusable association statement a Named Graph:

       rdf:type sim:Association ;
       dc:creator <> ;
       ao:associates {
       		ex:AssociationSubject ao:genre ex:Funk ;
       			ao:mood "happy"^^xsd:string ;
       			ao:occasion "good feeling music"^^xsd:string . } .

       rdf:type ao:LikeableAssociation ;
       ex:AssociationSubject ao:substitution ex:FunkyPlaylist ;
               ex:BobsAssociation ;
       ao:likeminded <> .

       rdf:type mo:Genre .

I introduced therefore another property, ao:substitution, which should 
substitute an existing class instance by another class instance to 
enable statements, which are independent from a specific class instance. 
I think such a substitution mechanism should be part of a knowledge 
representation model, or? I guess it should rather an inbuilt mechanism 
of the representation format itself.

What do you think about my approach? Does this makes sense and/or is it 
somehow possible to model these use cases?
You can also find the original example here[1,2] and the example with 
Named Graphs there[2]. The extended Association Ontology is here[4,5] 
and the original one there[6].




Am 04.08.2010 12:38, schrieb Bob Ferris:
> Hi,
> I posted this e-mail originally on the Music Ontology mailing list.
> However, I though this topic might also be of interest on the semantic
> web mailing list.
> At the beginning some background information: I co-designed the
> Association Ontology[12] over the last few weeks with the aim to be able
> to model
> - association statements, which can be liked, commented etc. from other
> people
> - specific categories to semantically enrich these association
> statements, e.g. mood, genre, occasion
> Because, I came up with the conclusion (before starting the design of
> the Association Ontology) that there don't exist an appropriate
> ontology, which includes this already.
> However, I had the feeling (afterwards) that I should give the existing
> annotation ontologies also a try to model my use cases ;)
> So here we go with my results and conclusion:
> ========================================================================
> I'd like to present association/modelling
> examples with another annotation ontology. Last night, I had the time
> to have a deeper look into the OAC Vocabulary from the Open Annotation
> Collaboration[1] and I thought that this ontology also reflects my
> aims re. annotation/association modelling. Unfortunately, the site
> (the server[2]), where they described this vocabulary, was down today.
> However, they wrote that their ontology is based on the Annotea
> Annotation Schema with has its roots back in the year 2000. Hence, I
> thought, it might be good to try this one. This schema includes a
> general annotation concept for reification of the "annotates"
> property, which can also be founded in several other annotation
> ontologies and which is also realized by the Similarity Ontology.
> Since the Annotea Annotation Schema was created in the early days of
> RDF, I thought it might be good to shift this ontology and its related
> Annotea Annotation Types namespace to the OWL world[5,6,7,8] (also for
> testing and extension purpose).
> However, when I came up to the example modelling (I took the annotated
> music playlist example[9]), I noticed that there are still many
> semantic relations not available. I observed that it is often the
> problem in the different annotation ontologies that the developers
> like to model a general applicable annotation model and thereby they
> are to focused on their domain and probably lost the overview that the
> annotation concept would be reutilized as extension or component in
> other applications (to annotate concepts of other ontologies).
> For example the Annotea Association Schema has a property called
> anno:related, which should be used to related a comment, question or
> whatever (the content of the annotation) to the anno:Annotation
> instance (therefore I added anno:Annotation also as domain of this
> property). This property was declared as to be subpropertied. That
> means, every semantically richer property should a sub property of
> this property and hence, also with the domain of anno:Annotation.
> However, if I have a property, which is initially intended to be
> directly related to something, e.g. mo:genre, and I simply want to
> reuse it also in the annotation context, I can't really do this
> without the application of Named Graphs, or? That was the reason, why
> I kept the domain of my dcterms:subject sub properties open in the
> Association Ontology.
> Another example is from the OAC Vocabulary. They renamed the
> properties from the Annotea Annotation Schema a bit there
> (anno:hasAnnotation to oac:hasTarget and anno:body to oac:hasBody).
> Furthermore, they added ranges to these annotation relation properties
> (oac:Target and oac:Body). That means every thing that is used to
> establish a oac:Annotation must be a oac.Target or oac:Body. Okay, I
> can add this to the type description of my instances. However, this
> would blew up the whole graph a bit, or? I want to reutilize existing
> concepts directly for annotation statements.
> Finally, I end up with copying more or less my whole association
> ontology to the Annotea namespace for testing purpose and modeled then
> my example[10], which now not really differs from the other example. I
> more or less also end up with the conclusion that a Named Graph
> (Nested Graph or whatever) based annotation/association statement
> modelling approach might be the best one, because I hopefully can
> reutilize, existing, semantically rich properties, without extending
> their domain (to an annotation concept) and I don't have to attach
> extra types to my instances to make them in an annotation/association
> statement usable. In the NEPOMUK Annotation Ontology[11], they
> demonstrated more or less how one can do this. However, they also used
> some concepts, which are restricted to their application domain, and
> they don't really aligned their ontology to DC, Review Ontology, Tag
> Ontology etc.
> I'm now really confused, which way I should go for solving the
> annotation/association "problem".
> =========================================================================
> So my final question is: Am I getting something wrong or it currently a
> "problem" to model semantically rich annotation/association statements?
> As far as I get through the results[13] of the Annotations Ontology
> Working Group from VoCamp 2010 they came up with more or less the same
> conclusion (use Named Graphs).
> Cheers,
> Bob
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]
> [4]
> [5]
> [6]
> [7]
> [8]
> [9]
> [10]
> [11]
> [12]
> [13]


Bob Ferris



Received on Friday, 6 August 2010 15:04:42 UTC