- From: Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:30:56 -0300
- To: Simon.Cox@csiro.au
- Cc: anthony.moretti@gmail.com, danbri@google.com, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, richard.wallis@dataliberate.com, public-schemaorg@w3.org, W3C Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOLUXBsOeiYzJVbR6sEKTpUAt4Z4DLmL4gazwNfKEAJmLpVsVw@mail.gmail.com>
In the realm of upper ontologies I think ISO-15926 [1] handles this sort of issues nicely (that's why I'm copying this thread to semantic-web) but it is a whole of an upper ontology and didn't have the time to understand it completely. For what is whorth for me, I'm trying to adapt an object-oriented design pattern (DCI: Data, Context and Interactions [2]) to the realm of RDF Quads metamodels. There I regard of dimensionally aggregated data (D) for which schema occurrences (C) play roles in behaviors instances / flows (I). I'm working in a formal description of the later, and I've also posted previously some blurry early drafts. I also have a strong focus in ontology alignments / translations so the use case could fit for generating other schema documents. Regards, Sebastián. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_15926 [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data,_context_and_interaction On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 5:23 AM <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote: > My read of all this is that > > > schema.org:Event subClassOf natural-language:Event . > > > You need to recognize that the name of the concept in schema.org is more > specialized that the use of the word 'Event' in all English-language > usages. > > The upper-ontologies resolve this by using a more technical word - like > occurrent or perdurant - which includes all time-bounded things including > both planned events, unplanned incidents, things that move around, as well > as other kinds of interactions. But even these attempts to define > universals must be taken with a pinch of salt. Classification is contextual > - the 'same thing' may be classified differently in different applications. > The main application of schema.org is SEO, so the classification system > is tuned to that. > > > > > *Simon J D Cox *Research Scientist > Land and Water > <http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Flagships/Land-and-Water> > CSIRO > > E simon.cox@csiro.au *T* +61 3 9545 2365 *M* +61 403 302 672 > * Physical: *Reception Central, Bayview Avenue, Clayton, Vic 3168 > * Deliveries: *Gate 3, Normanby Road, Clayton, Vic 3168 > *Postal:* Private Bag 10, Clayton South, Vic 3169 > people.csiro.au/C/S/Simon-Cox > orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420 > researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3 > <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3> > ------------------------------ > *From:* Anthony Moretti <anthony.moretti@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Monday, 11 June 2018 8:26 AM > *To:* Dan Brickley > *Cc:* Peter F. Patel-Schneider; Richard Wallis; public-schemaorg@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: Schema.org and OWL > > > Yep I definitely understand it doesn't imply disjointedness. But > subclassing is answered by the "some or all" test, and I'd argue that all > instances of these types are events. For example, is there an example of a > trip that is not an event? > > > And yep I completely agree, some not all books have current offers for > sale/trade, so books are not a subtype of product. And I completely agree > with the second example too, some not all things being offered are creative > works. For example, an orange being offered for sale is a product but not a > creative work, thus not all products are creative works. So I don't think > those are examples of tradeoffs by schema.org, they're completely correct > modeling by schema.org. > > > If things like trips aren't considered events then strange behavior or > additional work for people will result. For example a reasoner might look > for all events to display on a calendar, but with the current structure all > trips will have to be additionally typed as events, when in my view it > should be implicit from already being classified as a trip. > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 2:38 PM Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote: > >> The lack of a "subclassof" relationship doesn't mean we consider the >> types disjoint. You might similarly argue that all books are products, or >> that all products are creative works. While we respect the efforts of the >> ontologies community, Schema org is a bit different in the tradeoffs we >> have chosen to make. The looseness may be frustrating but it has also >> helped us grow this thing incrementally. >> >> Dan >> >> >> On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, 14:28 Anthony Moretti, <anthony.moretti@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> If we believe schema.org will be used long into the future then even if >>> changes are hard we should try to make them right? >>> >>> >>> Arguing by word origins, even the word "action" comes from "event". >>> Using the dictionary on Google: >>> >>> >>> "action" >>> >>> "act" >>> >>> "actus" (Latin) - event, thing done >>> >>> >>> Arguing by structure, Actions on schema.org duplicate the startDate and >>> endDate properties (startTime and endTime). Additionally, Actions have a >>> state property on schema.org but Events do not, yet all action states >>> can all be derived from more general event states. So putting Action, or >>> any type with a startDate or endDate, as a subtype of Event actually >>> removes redundancy. >>> >>> >>> A simple test to determine whether something is an event or not is can >>> it be put on a calendar and look normal? I think instances of all the types >>> I mentioned can: >>> >>> >>> Event >>> >>> Action >>> >>> Course >>> >>> Offer >>> >>> ParcelDelivery >>> >>> Relationship >>> >>> Trip >>> >>> >>> Anthony >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 11:38 AM Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Yeah, we decided against cramming Actions under Event a long time ago, >>>> even if it has a certain appeal; I' d say same goes for the other event-ish >>>> types. >>>> >>>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, 11:24 Peter F. Patel-Schneider, < >>>> pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> It's very difficult to determine what things are instance of >>>>> schema.org Event >>>>> because the guidance is so slim, particularly as we are not supposed >>>>> to take >>>>> into account most of the information on http://schema.org/Event. My >>>>> view is >>>>> that even if we are supposed to ignore everything after "certain time >>>>> and >>>>> location", then schema.org Event should be read narrowly, excluding >>>>> things >>>>> that don't have a certain time or don't have a certain location. This >>>>> would >>>>> rule out Action, ParcelDelivery (as the entire delivery process), and >>>>> Trip, as >>>>> these generally take place over several locations. Offer is ruled out >>>>> because it often doesn't have a location at all and its temporal >>>>> information >>>>> doesn't have to do with its "happening". Course is also ruled out >>>>> because it >>>>> is more than a sequence of lectures. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> One could take an expansive view of schema.org Event, perhaps saying >>>>> that its >>>>> instances are anything that has a temporal component and a spatial >>>>> component. So Bill Murray is an instance of schema.org Event via >>>>> his birth >>>>> date and his location on Earth, as is his membership in the cast of >>>>> Ghostbusters. But then what things aren't instances of Event (besides >>>>> platonic entities like 3, if you assume that there are any truly >>>>> platonic >>>>> entities)? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Is there a middle ground? Formal ontologists have attempted to create >>>>> one---dividing the universe into endurants and perdurants. But I >>>>> don't see >>>>> that schema.org Event is getting at the meaning of perdurant. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> peter >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 06/10/2018 12:32 AM, Anthony Moretti wrote: >>>>> > Let's get the easy ones out of the way before looking at Roles. The >>>>> > following are obviously subtypes of event, I might create an issue >>>>> on GitHub >>>>> > to get more feedback: >>>>> > >>>>> > Event >>>>> > >>>>> > Action >>>>> > >>>>> > Course >>>>> > >>>>> > Offer >>>>> > >>>>> > ParcelDelivery >>>>> > >>>>> > Trip >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > I'll argue for Role now. In my view, it would be easier to >>>>> understand if the >>>>> > terminology was Relation, or Relationship, rather than Role. >>>>> > >>>>> > An event is either: >>>>> > >>>>> > * A period of time (e.g. Jun 9, 2018, 12 PM - 1 PM) >>>>> > * The period of time that a statement, explicit or implicit, is >>>>> true (e.g. >>>>> > My run this morning = Anthony isRunning True) >>>>> > >>>>> > To be clear, having the same statement exist with different periods >>>>> of >>>>> > validity can still be consistent: >>>>> > >>>>> > * Anthony isRunning True (Jun 9, 2018, 12 PM - 1 PM) >>>>> > * Anthony isRunning True (Jun 8, 2018, 12 PM - 1 PM) >>>>> > >>>>> > If you look at temporal databases >>>>> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_database> every fact has >>>>> a valid >>>>> > time <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valid_time> - the time period >>>>> during >>>>> > which the fact is true. Therefore if you reify any fact or >>>>> relationship you >>>>> > produce something with start or end times, therefore producing an >>>>> event. >>>>> > >>>>> > In schema.org <http://schema.org>: >>>>> > >>>>> > 1. All Roles are reified relationships. >>>>> > 2. Therefore all Roles have "valid times". >>>>> > 3. Therefore all Roles have start or end times. >>>>> > 4. Therefore all Roles are events. >>>>> > >>>>> > If the terminology was updated it would look like: >>>>> > >>>>> > Event >>>>> > >>>>> > Relationship, or Relation (currently Role) >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Regarding Bill Murray, what is being modeled if not the fact that >>>>> Bill >>>>> > Murray was involved as an actor during its filming, and so for a >>>>> period of time? >>>>> > >>>>> > And yep, I agree that you can define an entity and separately define >>>>> an >>>>> > event that represents its period of existence. But you can't do that >>>>> for an >>>>> > event, and in like fashion you can't do that for a statement either, >>>>> it just >>>>> > wouldn't make sense for either right? >>>>> > >>>>> > Anthony >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:52 PM Peter F. Patel-Schneider >>>>> > <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > Yes, many Roles in schema.org <http://schema.org> are events, >>>>> and could >>>>> > be so modelled. But not >>>>> > all, in my opinion, or at least not usefully. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > For example the relationship between Bill Murray and >>>>> Ghostbusters is not an >>>>> > event. It was, perhaps, initiated by a bunch of events, namely >>>>> a >>>>> > sequence of >>>>> > acting performances that were captured and edited together to >>>>> form the >>>>> > movie. >>>>> > However, that bunch of events is not the relationship being >>>>> modelled. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > It's just like one might model people as their lives, i.e., an >>>>> event that >>>>> > plays out (roughly) from conception to death. But I find it >>>>> useful to >>>>> > distinguish between a person and their life event. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > peter >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > On 06/06/2018 09:01 PM, Anthony Moretti wrote: >>>>> > > I agree that the first problem to do with strings can be >>>>> solved by boxing >>>>> > > them into anonymous individuals. On the second problem to do >>>>> with Roles I >>>>> > > agree that you can't do a simple "subjectOf" transform because >>>>> Role is not >>>>> > > in the domain of "about", but maybe defining a new property >>>>> such as >>>>> > > "participantIn" (domain Thing, range Role) and using it >>>>> wherever a Role is >>>>> > > the object of a statement might keep about the same level of >>>>> meaning (not >>>>> > > very good) but at least make it consistent OWL? So your >>>>> example would be >>>>> > > transformed to: >>>>> > > >>>>> > > DJT : Person >>>>> > > >>>>> > > participantIn ? : Role >>>>> > > >>>>> > > spouse MM : Person >>>>> > > >>>>> > > startDate : 1993 >>>>> > > >>>>> > > endDate : 1999 >>>>> > > >>>>> > > participantIn ? : Role >>>>> > > >>>>> > > spouse IT : Person >>>>> > > >>>>> > > startDate : 1977 >>>>> > > >>>>> > > endDate : 1992 >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > A more general solution using guidance >>>>> > > from https://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/ and with >>>>> better meaning >>>>> > > might be: >>>>> > > >>>>> > > DJT : Person >>>>> > > >>>>> > > isSpouseFor ? : MarriageRelation >>>>> > > >>>>> > > spouse DJT : Person >>>>> > > >>>>> > > spouse MM : Person >>>>> > > >>>>> > > startDate : 1993 >>>>> > > >>>>> > > endDate : 1999 >>>>> > > >>>>> > > isSpouseFor ? : MarriageRelation >>>>> > > >>>>> > > spouse DJT : Person >>>>> > > >>>>> > > spouse IT : Person >>>>> > > >>>>> > > startDate : 1977 >>>>> > > >>>>> > > endDate : 1992 >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Your question about movie roles is also solved by this, for >>>>> example: >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Bill Murray : Person >>>>> > > >>>>> > > isActorFor ? : PerformanceRelation >>>>> > > >>>>> > > actor Bill Murray : Person >>>>> > > >>>>> > > movie Ghostbusters : Movie >>>>> > > >>>>> > > characterName : Dr. Peter Venkman >>>>> > > >>>>> > > startDate : 1983 >>>>> > > >>>>> > > endDate : 1984 >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Class hierarchy: >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Event >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Relation >>>>> > > >>>>> > > MarriageRelation >>>>> > > >>>>> > > PerformanceRelation >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > I think confusion might come from the many English meanings of >>>>> "role": >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Type of role, e.g. Quarterback - no start or end dates. >>>>> > > Instance of a role, e.g. 49ers quarterback 1979-1992 - >>>>> potential start >>>>> > > and end dates. >>>>> > > Character, e.g. Hamlet - no start or end dates. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > So I'm still lead to believe that Role/Relation and several >>>>> other types in >>>>> > > schema.org <http://schema.org> <http://schema.org> are >>>>> subtypes of >>>>> > Event because their instances >>>>> > > always have potential start and end dates: >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Event >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Action >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Course >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Role/Relation >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Offer >>>>> > > >>>>> > > ParcelDelivery >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Trip >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Anybody else think this too? I'm a bit new to this so hope I'm >>>>> not putting >>>>> > > something too strange out there! >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Anthony >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 3:20 PM Peter F. Patel-Schneider >>>>> > > <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com> >>>>> > <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > > >>>>> > > The short-circuiting of Role in schema.org < >>>>> http://schema.org> >>>>> > <http://schema.org> is >>>>> > > certainly outside of >>>>> > > schema.org <http://schema.org> <http://schema.org>. OWL >>>>> has >>>>> > nothing that can do the right >>>>> > > thing with the following >>>>> > > schema.org <http://schema.org> <http://schema.org> data >>>>> > > >>>>> > > DJT : Person >>>>> > > spouse ? : Role >>>>> > > spouse MM : Person >>>>> > > startDate : 1991 >>>>> > > endDate : 1999 >>>>> > > spouse ? : Role >>>>> > > spouse IT : Person >>>>> > > startDate : 1977 >>>>> > > endDate: 1992 >>>>> > > spouse MT : Person >>>>> > > particularly in conjunction with >>>>> > > spouse >>>>> > > domain Person >>>>> > > range Person >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Except that you could turn *all* property values (except >>>>> maybe for >>>>> > those >>>>> > > properties that are guaranteed never to have a Role >>>>> intermediary) into >>>>> > > events >>>>> > > *before* they got to OWL. This would look something like: >>>>> > > >>>>> > > DJT : Person >>>>> > > spouseEvent ? : SpouseEvent >>>>> > > spouse MM : Person >>>>> > > startDate : 1991 >>>>> > > endDate : 1999 >>>>> > > spouseEvent ? : SpouseEvent >>>>> > > spouse IT : Person >>>>> > > startDate : 1997 >>>>> > > endDate : 1992 >>>>> > > spouseEvent ? : SpouseEvent >>>>> > > spouse MT : Person >>>>> > > spouse range Person >>>>> > > domain SpouseEvent >>>>> > > spouseEvent range SpouseEvent >>>>> > > domain Person >>>>> > > SpouseEvent sub Event >>>>> > > startDate range Date >>>>> > > endDate range Date >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Hah! That turned out better than I thought it would, but >>>>> I view the >>>>> > > need for >>>>> > > the transform as showing that schema.org < >>>>> http://schema.org> >>>>> > <http://schema.org> Role is >>>>> > > outside the purview of OWL >>>>> > > because it requires major surgery to the underlying >>>>> ontology (as >>>>> > opposed >>>>> > > to a >>>>> > > transform to handle "strings as things" that just replaces >>>>> such >>>>> > strings >>>>> > > with a >>>>> > > blank node connected to the string by some sort of >>>>> description >>>>> > property >>>>> > > which >>>>> > > doesn't require such surgery). >>>>> > > >>>>> > > And then what do you do about movie roles? They shouldn't >>>>> have start >>>>> > > and end >>>>> > > dates, or even have the possibility of start and end dates. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > peter >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > On 06/06/2018 02:50 PM, Anthony Moretti wrote: >>>>> > > > Peter, when you say "roles fall outside the purview of >>>>> OWL" is >>>>> > it possible >>>>> > > > that Role should be a subtype of Event, thus requiring >>>>> no special >>>>> > > treatment? >>>>> > > > I say that because individual roles have potential start >>>>> and end >>>>> > dates. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > If you continue that thinking you end up with several >>>>> types that >>>>> > might be >>>>> > > > considered subtypes of Event: >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Event >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Action >>>>> > > > Course >>>>> > > > Role >>>>> > > > Offer >>>>> > > > Parcel delivery >>>>> > > > Trip >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Anthony >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 7:42 AM Peter F. Patel-Schneider >>>>> > > > <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com> >>>>> > <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> >>>>> > > <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto: >>>>> pfpschneider@gmail.com> >>>>> > <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > OK, it appears that you are trying to produce an OWL >>>>> > ontology that >>>>> > > would >>>>> > > > accept schema.org <http://schema.org> < >>>>> http://schema.org> >>>>> > <http://schema.org> >>>>> > > documents that would accept >>>>> > > > unexceptional schema.org <http://schema.org> >>>>> > <http://schema.org> <http://schema.org> >>>>> > > > documents (under some loose definition of what makes >>>>> an >>>>> > unexceptional >>>>> > > > schema.org <http://schema.org> <http://schema.org> >>>>> > <http://schema.org> document). >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > But you are running up against problems with >>>>> "strings as >>>>> > things" and >>>>> > > > Roles. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Look at about and subjectOf. Any use of a string >>>>> as a >>>>> > value for >>>>> > > about is >>>>> > > > going to make that string an instance of two OWL >>>>> Classes >>>>> > (the range of >>>>> > > > about, >>>>> > > > which includes Text, and the domain of subjectOf, >>>>> which >>>>> > doesn't). >>>>> > > This >>>>> > > > is not >>>>> > > > permissible in OWL. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Using a role as a value for subjectOf will make the >>>>> role node an >>>>> > > instance of >>>>> > > > the domain of about, which doesn't include Role. >>>>> Roles fall >>>>> > > outside the >>>>> > > > purview of OWL. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > What I think has to be done for "strings as things" >>>>> is to >>>>> > > preprocess them as >>>>> > > > an anonymous node with the string as the value of >>>>> some >>>>> > description >>>>> > > > property. >>>>> > > > Roles need to be short-circuited and the role values >>>>> > eliminated. >>>>> > > If the >>>>> > > > role >>>>> > > > values are to be retained then some sort of fancy >>>>> > reification has >>>>> > > to be >>>>> > > > introduced. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > But a lot of this is guesswork, as it is unclear >>>>> just what >>>>> > "strings as >>>>> > > > things" >>>>> > > > and Roles mean in schema.org <http://schema.org> >>>>> > <http://schema.org> >>>>> > > <http://schema.org>. (I haven't looked >>>>> > > > closely at the use of URLs >>>>> > > > as stand-ins for objects but my guess is that that >>>>> is similar to >>>>> > > "strings as >>>>> > > > things".) >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > OWL makes a distinction between object and data >>>>> values, and this >>>>> > > distinction >>>>> > > > has to be carried through to the ontology, where >>>>> there are >>>>> > classes and >>>>> > > > datatypes. As far as I can tell Text should be a >>>>> datatype. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > peter >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > On 06/06/2018 07:09 AM, Richard Wallis wrote: >>>>> > > > > Just the fresh pair of experienced eyes I needed! >>>>> - Thanks >>>>> > @Thomas >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > @Danbri - not “wasting a lot of time agonising", >>>>> in simple >>>>> > terms >>>>> > > I’m just >>>>> > > > > [selfishly] trying to get a useful version to load >>>>> > into Protégé and >>>>> > > > > hopefully helping a few others at the same time. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > @Peter thanks for your thoughtful questions. As >>>>> you can see >>>>> > > from the >>>>> > > > above >>>>> > > > > the prime simple objective is to get it visible >>>>> > in Protégé. Beyond >>>>> > > > that, it >>>>> > > > > is to capture the class and property hierarchy of >>>>> Schema.org >>>>> > > including >>>>> > > > > the multiple domain/ranges of properties defined >>>>> [In >>>>> > Schema.org] >>>>> > > using >>>>> > > > > domainIncludes & rangeIncludes, in a way that a >>>>> tool >>>>> > > like Protégé can cope >>>>> > > > > with. As for ranges, it includes the assumption >>>>> that >>>>> > properties, in >>>>> > > > > addition to the defined range(s), also have Text, >>>>> URL, and >>>>> > Role >>>>> > > > included in >>>>> > > > > their range. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > Once I’ve done it, I want to add the simple >>>>> generating code to >>>>> > > the Schema >>>>> > > > > scripts run at release time so that it can be kept >>>>> up to date. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > ~Richard. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > Richard Wallis >>>>> > > > > Founder, Data Liberate >>>>> > > > > http://dataliberate.com >>>>> > > > > Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis >>>>> > > > > Twitter: @rjw >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > On 6 June 2018 at 14:45, Peter F. Patel-Schneider >>>>> > > > <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto: >>>>> pfpschneider@gmail.com> >>>>> > <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> >>>>> > > <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto: >>>>> pfpschneider@gmail.com> >>>>> > <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>>> >>>>> > > > > <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com >>>>> > <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com> <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com >>>>> > <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> >>>>> > > <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto: >>>>> pfpschneider@gmail.com> >>>>> > <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > It's hard to say much about the file without >>>>> knowing >>>>> > what it is >>>>> > > > supposed to >>>>> > > > > capture. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > It is supposed to capture the class and >>>>> property >>>>> > hierarchy and >>>>> > > > property >>>>> > > > > restrictions or schema.org <http://schema.org> >>>>> > <http://schema.org> >>>>> > > <http://schema.org> >>>>> > > > <http://schema.org>, but not necessarily in a >>>>> > > > > form compatible with RDFS >>>>> > > > > or OWL? >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > Is it supposed to faithfully encode the model >>>>> theory of >>>>> > > schema.org <http://schema.org> <http://schema.org> >>>>> > > > <http://schema.org> >>>>> > > > > <http://schema.org> in OWL? >>>>> > > > > If so, where is the document for this theory? >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > Is it supposed to capture "strings as things" >>>>> or Roles? >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > How does it view property domains and >>>>> ranges? As >>>>> > axioms? >>>>> > > As strict >>>>> > > > > constraints? As soft constraints? >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > I would also move from rdf/xml to turtle, >>>>> which is >>>>> > easier to >>>>> > > write and >>>>> > > > > easier >>>>> > > > > to read. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > peter >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > On 06/06/2018 05:05 AM, Richard Wallis wrote: >>>>> > > > > > Calling folks with more OWL experience than >>>>> me! >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > The schema.org <http://schema.org> >>>>> > <http://schema.org> <http://schema.org> >>>>> > > <http://schema.org> >>>>> > > > <http://schema.org> site has an OWL >>>>> > > > > definition file that has >>>>> > > > > > not been maintained since April >>>>> > > > 2014: http://schema.org/docs/schemaorg.owl >>>>> > > > <http://schema.org/docs/schemaorg.owl>. >>>>> > > > > > Also the structure and syntax of the file >>>>> needs some >>>>> > > attention. >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > To help with the occasional questions about >>>>> accessing >>>>> > > processable >>>>> > > > > > representations of the vocabulary; to >>>>> attempt to >>>>> > close an >>>>> > > issue >>>>> > > > (#1611 >>>>> > > > > > < >>>>> https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1611 >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > <https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1611>>); and to >>>>> > > > help with a >>>>> > > > > > personal project, I have had a look at >>>>> producing an >>>>> > up to >>>>> > > date, >>>>> > > > improved, >>>>> > > > > > maintainable version of the file. >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > My first attempt can be downloaded/viewed >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > here: >>>>> https://s3.amazonaws.com/rjwPublicData/public/schemaorg.owl >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > <https://s3.amazonaws.com/rjwPublicData/public/schemaorg.owl> >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > I am looking for comments, suggestions, and >>>>> help >>>>> > around a few >>>>> > > > aspects of >>>>> > > > > > this work in progress: >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > * Is it generally ‘a good owl file’ >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > * Should it contain more/less info about >>>>> > the vocabulary and >>>>> > > > its terms >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > * Specifically with reference to >>>>> domainIncludes and >>>>> > > rangeInclude - >>>>> > > > > mapped >>>>> > > > > > to rdfs:domain & rdfs:range with >>>>> > owl:unionOfcollections: >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > o Is this the best/only way to >>>>> represent multiple >>>>> > > domain & >>>>> > > > > ranges for >>>>> > > > > > an objectproperty? >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > o Have I got the syntax correct? >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > * Several people use Protégé >>>>> > > <https://protege.stanford.edu/> as a >>>>> > > > > tool for >>>>> > > > > > this kind of effort - I am trying to >>>>> identify >>>>> > what syntax, >>>>> > > > will enable >>>>> > > > > > this tool to recognise the multiple >>>>> > domain/ranges when >>>>> > > importing >>>>> > > > > this file. >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > If anyone out there with more OWL experience >>>>> than me >>>>> > (not >>>>> > > > difficult), >>>>> > > > > could >>>>> > > > > > spend a few minutes taking a look at this and >>>>> > commenting, it >>>>> > > > would be >>>>> > > > > > greatly appreciated. >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > ~Richard >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > Richard Wallis >>>>> > > > > > Founder, Data Liberate >>>>> > > > > > http://dataliberate.com >>>>> > > > > > Linkedin: >>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis >>>>> > > > > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis> >>>>> > > > > > Twitter: @rjw >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>
Received on Monday, 11 June 2018 16:32:38 UTC