Re: Best practices for versioning and documenting ontologies for Sem Web

Hi,

thanks for you feedback, please see below:

On 06.02.2017 17:59, Jean-Marc Vanel wrote:
>
> I've looked at Vocol, and it's too complex to install as a server, the 
> mere length of the install pages is frightening. But it certainly has 
> good tools

Actually you can install VoCol using two easy options:
- Docker instructions: https://hub.docker.com/r/lavdim/vocol/
- Vagrant instructions: 
https://github.com/vocol/vocol#installation-using-a-virtual-machine-image-vagrant-box

>
> I thought of a simple pre-commit that would use *rapper* to validate 
> the Turtle syntax, and translate to N-Triples format, plus possibly 
> applying the sort command to prevent re-ordering of the triples by 
> tools like Protégé .
> Protégé and certainly other tools can read the N-Triples format, after 
> all it's Turtle also.

Yes, we implemented it in a similar way, first we check for syntax 
validation (in case of syntactic errors, the commit is canceled and the 
user is notified with a detailed error description provided by rapper), 
then a unique serialization using the RDF-toolkit is provided always 
preserving turtle format (because of its readability required by some 
ontology engineers who prefer to work directly on "source"). All these 
services are integrated into VoCol and user doesn't have to install any 
other tool.
>
> Using sorted N-Triples format, which is kind of canonical format, aims 
> at avoiding non-significant differences in git versioning. But I admit 
> that it does not work if tools renames blank nodes.

Agree, this is a point where additional work is required to deal with 
blank nodes in order to keep away from false-positive conflicts.


If you have any question/need for support during installation of VoCol 
or later issues, please write us.

Best,
Lavdim
>
>
>
>
>
> 2017-01-31 8:47 GMT+01:00 Niklas Petersen <petersen@cs.uni-bonn.de 
> <mailto:petersen@cs.uni-bonn.de>>:
>
>     +1 on any git-based tool recommendation + N3/Turtle
>
>     On documentation & publishing:
>
>     Depending on your team, there are very likely knowledge engineers,
>     domain experts (and probably users) with some knowledge in
>     modeling things and those completely without. I would recommend in
>     the beginning to take the time to identify in which way different
>     potential contributers might be able to engage in the development
>     process and with the ontology itself. This includes presenting
>     different tools to edit/visualize the ontology and explain them
>     thoroughly the Turtle syntax if that is your weapon of choice. To
>     keep the threshold as low as possible, I would further recommend
>     to you tools which offer a web interface. The goal needs to be to
>     provide anyone with a mild interest in your ontology an easy way
>     to engage with it. Good luck!
>
>
>     On 30.01.2017 15:08, Simon Spero wrote:
>>     (metaphysics should be avoided
>>     as much as possible, but it's important to be able to recognize it so you
>>     know what to run away from)
>     Out of curiosity, could you give an example?
>
>     Niklas
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Jean-Marc Vanel
> http://www.semantic-forms.cc:9111/display?displayuri=http://jmvanel.free.fr/jmv.rdf%23me
> Déductions SARL - Consulting, services, training,
> Rule-based programming, Semantic Web
> +33 (0)6 89 16 29 52
> Twitter: @jmvanel , @jmvanel_fr ; chat: 
> irc://irc.freenode.net#eulergui <http://irc.freenode.net#eulergui>