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

Thanks Jim!  Domain knowledge is certainly helpful in making realistic
examples!  I will make the fixes you suggested.  Thanks again.  /Roger

Jim Farrugia wrote:
> 
> 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 17:09:34 UTC