[w3photo] w3photo: vocabulary tests (OWL DL vs. OWL Full vs. RDFS vs. RDFS + OWL)

Hi all,

re: "action bengee try to build OWL DL version of the parts of image
annotation ontology and publish it somewhere."

sorry for being so late. took me more time than expected to
make my modeler export rdfs and reduced owl dl. and I translated
parts of the UI to english in case someone should be interested in
collaborative vocab-editing.

I have to leave now but could publish what I've got so far tomorrow.
(If this is still of any value and you are still interested. just send
me a mail.)

this is what could be done with the tool:
- model/describe the terms under discussion (online, moz/ns7-browser req.)
- export ontologies for a given namespace as
   - plain rdfs
   - owl dl (some basic filtering)
   - owl full
   - rdfs+owl (rdfs:Classes with additional owl, like the foaf spec does)


some (personal) short comments and thoughts on open issues:
- foaf:maker vs an:author vs dc:creator
   - dl would prefer foaf:maker. an:author is a subproperty of 
     dc:creator which are both complicated to port to owl dl.
     it could be done by typing them as owl:ObjectProperties with
     a range of foaf:Person. but if any other (owl) vocab describes
     dc:creator as a DatatypeProp, we may end up with inconsistent
     web data and marty mc fly will never get back home..
   - using a non-hybrid ObjProperty (e.g. foaf:maker) would IMHO lead
     to better (i.e. more precise) instance data.

- dc:title,dc:description:
   - I don't see any owl dl issues here. they should be 
     DatatypeProperties.

- jen golbeck's conference ontology:
   - no DL problems, vocab could be imported.

- foaf:mbox_sha1sum:
   - OWL DL doesn't allow textual InverseFunctionalProperties (IFPs)
   - we could just skip the IFP typing in an OWL DL version. consuming
     apps could support the semantics at app-level.

- CC schema
   - didn't have a look a yet. may be same issues as with dc terms.

- OWL DL at all?
   - depends on the issues above. I think it would be nice to offer an  
     additional OWL DL-friendly doc that covers as much of the 
     specification as possible. but I'm not sure about that. could
     well be that tool builders don't even go for DL. I personally would
     be happy with a dl-near owl full version.



good night,
benjamin

--
Benjamin Nowack

Kruppstr. 82-100
45145 Essen, Germany




     
      

=================
This is the TEMPORARY discussion list for the W3 Semantic-Photo History
Project. For questions, contact greg@fotonotes.net.

Subscribe Instructions
To:   semantic-photolist-request@unitboy.com
Body: subscribe

Unsubscribe Instructions
To:   semantic-photolist-request@unitboy.com
Body: unsubscribe

Help
To:   semantic-photolist-request@unitboy.com
Body: help

Received on Monday, 26 January 2004 18:26:51 UTC