Re: Bridging the Terminology Gap using OWL ... an exciting example

Roger,

A few quick comments after (adimittedly only) skimming your example.

1. The aperture (last I knew) is determined by the lens, not
the camera, so if I'm right, it wouldn't make exact sense to say you are 
seeking a _camera_ with aperture of at least 1.4.

2. An aperture (f-stop) of 1.2 does fall into the category of
"an aperture of at least 1.4" (at least in camera speak); yet 
1.2 is not at least 1.4 (in terms of numbers and the usual ordering 
relation). This incongruity may cause some problems in understanding.

3. The aperture on all but the best zoom lenses is variable (e.g., 4.5-5.6),
so you may need the facility to compare the desired minimum value to a range
of values, not to just a single point value.

4. It's not clear to me from the way you state the query whether the
bounds on the shutter speed are to be taken as exact. That is, what
if you find a camera that has a minimum shutter speed of 1/8000 sec and a 
maximum of 30 seconds (plus bulb?)? Would such a camera, assuming the other
requirements were met, satisfy your query?

5. Also, for the 300mm zoom lens, ... which lenses would work? Anything
that reaches to or covers 300mm (e.g., 75-300, 100-300, 100-400)?

6. I assume a 300mm fixed-focal-length, telephoto lens (i.e., not a zoom)
does not satsify the query?

Oh, and if you find a 300mm/f1.4 lens please let me know where. :-)


Jim

On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, Roger L. Costello wrote:

> 
> Hi Folks,
> 
> I am trying to create some simple examples which demonstrate the power
> of OWL. (I would like examples that are as compelling as Ian Davis'
> version of The Robber and the Speeder.)
> 
> Below is my start at an example.  It needs some work to make it
> "compelling".  Can you help me flesh out this example to make it more
> compelling?
> 
> Here's the example:
> 
> BRIDGING THE TERMINOLOGY GAP USING OWL
> 
> A key problem in achieving interoperability is to be able to recognize
> that two pieces of data are talking about the same thing.
> 
> The following example shows how OWL may be used to bridge the
> "terminology gap".
> 
> INTERESTED IN PURCHASING A CAMERA
> 
> Query: "I am interested in purchasing a camera with an aperture of (at
> least) 1.4, a shutter speed that ranges from 1/2000 sec. to 10 sec., and
> with a 300mm zoom lens."
> 
> This query can be expressed in XML as:
> 
> <Camera>
>     <aperture>1.4 (or better)</aperture>
>     <shutter-speed>1/2000 sec. to 10 sec.</shutter-speed>
>     <lens>300mm zoom</lens>
> </Camera>
> 
> Thus, the query may be recast as: "Find all XML documents which overlap
> with the above XML document."
> 
> IS THIS DOCUMENT RELEVANT?
> 
> My Web Bot finds this document at a Web site:
> 
> <PhotographyStore rdf:ID="Hunts"
>                   xmlns:rdf="&rdf;#">
>     <store-location>Malden, MA</store-location>
>     <phone>617-555-1234</phone>
>     <catalog rdf:parseType="Collection">
>         <SLR rdf:ID="Olympus-OM-10">
>             <f-stop>1.2</f-stop>
>             <shutter-speed>1/2000 sec. to 10 sec.</shutter-speed>
>             <compatible-lenses>
>                 <lens>35mm</lens>
>                 <lens>50mm</lens>
>                 <lens>300mm zoom</lens>
>             </compatible-lenses>
>             <cost>starting at: $325 USD</cost>
>         </SLR>
>         ...
>     </catalog>
> </PhotographyStore>
> 
> Is this document relevant?  Does it meet the query specifications? 
> 
> To determine if there is a match, these questions must be answered:
> 1. What's the relationship between "SLR" and "Camera"?
> 2. What's the relationship between "f-stop" and "aperture"?
> 
> RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SLR AND CAMERA?
> 
> This OWL rule (from the Camera Ontology) tells the Web Bot that an SLR
> is a type of Camera:
> 
> <owl:Class rdf:ID="SLR">
>       <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Camera"/>
> </owl:Class>
> 
> RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN F-STOP AND APERTURE?
> 
> This OWL rule tells the Web Bot that f-stop is equivalent to aperture:
> 
> <owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:ID="f-stop">
>        <owl:equivalentProperty rdf:resource="#aperture"/>
>        <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#SLR"/>
>        <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&xsd;#string"/>
> </owl:DatatypeProperty>
> 
> My Web Bot now recognizes that the XML document it found at the Web site 
>     - is talking about Cameras, and 
>     - does show the aperture for the camera.
> 
> Further, the aperture exceeds the minimum value specified by the query
> (1.4), and the shutter speed and lens criteria is met.
> 
> Thus, my Web Bot has determined that this Olympus OM-10 SLR instance 
> document is a match for my query!
> 
> SUMMARY: INTEROPERABILITY DESPITE TERMINOLOGY DIFFERENCES!
> 
> The example demonstrates how my Web Bot was able to utilize the data
> from the Web site, despite the fact that the XML document used different
> terminology.  This interoperability was achieved through the use of the
> OWL Camera Ontology.
> 
> ----
> Okay, that's a start.  Can you help to improve this example, i.e., show
> more OWL features, and make it more compelling?  /Roger
> 
>

Received on Friday, 4 April 2003 17:00:49 UTC