- From: Roger L. Costello <costello@mitre.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:55:45 -0400
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
- CC: "Costello,Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
Thanks to all that responded to my request. Your suggestions are interesting, but it is not clear to me how they demonstrate the advantage of an RDFS- or OWL-ontology. What aspect of RDFS or OWL is being utilized? Is subtyping being utilized? equivalentProperty? disjointFrom? etc. Let me give an example to show what I mean. Suppose that a document contains this data: <rdf:Description> <lat>73.000</lat> <lon>123.000</lon> ... document 1 data ... </rdf:Description> Now consider this second document: <rdf:Description> <latititude>73.000</latitude> <longitude>123.000</longitude> ... document 2 data ... </rdf:Description> Suppose that an OWL Location ontology exists and defines: lat is an equivalentProperty to latitude lon is an equivalentProperty to longitude By consulting an OWL ontology an application can recognize that the two documents are providing data for the same location, and can thus fuse (aggregate) the data: <rdf:Description> <lat>73.000</lat> <lon>123.000</lon> ... document 1 data ... ... document 2 data ... </rdf:Description> This is certainly one valid use of the information in an ontology, but is is not a particularly compelling example. I was hoping that someone could give me a more compelling example. The example that I would love to show is this: suppose that document 1 has data for a particular region, expressed as a "bounding box": <rdf:Description> <region> <top-left-coordinate> <lat>73.000</lat> <lon>123.000</lon> </top-left-coordinate> <bottom-right-coordinate> <lat>75.000</lat> <lon>125.000</lon> </bottom-right-coordinate> </region> ... document 1 data ... </rdf:Description> And document 2 contains data for an area that is within the bounding box: <rdf:Description> <latititude>74.000</latitude> <longitude>124.000</longitude> ... document 2 data ... </rdf:Description> It would be *extremely* cool if, by consulting an OWL Location ontology, an application could recognize that the location specified in document 2 is located *within* the bounding box specified in document 1. Such an example would get a *lot* of people in my community very excited about OWL and RDFS. Unfortunately, I can think of nothing in OWL or RDFS that would help with this (I am eager to be proven wrong). /Roger "Roger L. Costello" wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > I need to give a talk (soon) on the benefits of ontologies to some folks > whose data is location-dependent. That is, their data is for a specific > location (expressed as a lat/lon), at a specific time. > > I think that they would be very impressed if I could show how the > information in ontologies may be used to help fuse (aggregate) their > data with other data that corresponds to the same location. > > If anyone has ideas on creating a compelling story along these lines > please let me know. /Roger
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2003 08:55:57 UTC