- From: Jonathan Dale <jdale@fla.fujitsu.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 08:06:07 -0700
- To: "Guus Schreiber" <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>, <nmg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "Stephen Buswell," <StephenB@stilo.com>, "Smith, Michael K." <michael.smith@eds.com>
- Cc: "WebOnt WG" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
I have one further one to add from Agentcities: 6. Evening Organiser Service location, retrieval and synthesis from various different service types (cinemas, restaurants, transportation) and classes (provider, finder, reviewer and rater); service composition across multiple service types. Jonathan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guus Schreiber" <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl> To: <nmg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>; "Stephen Buswell," <StephenB@stilo.com>; "Smith, Michael K." <michael.smith@eds.com> Cc: "WebOnt WG" <www-webont-wg@w3.org> Sent: Friday, 14 December 2001 8:31 am Subject: COLLECT: updated summary Dec 14 > Colleagues, > > I have updated the collection-management area summary with the use-case > descriptions I got from Stephen and Nick (see end of message). Please > send me your feedback on this first cut. > > I think we already have quite a diverse and representative collection of > use cases. I have tried to generalize somewhat from each use case: > > 1. Endangered species: > Structured scientific descriptions: there are many of these collections > on the web, describing animals, plants, diseases, etc. > > 2. EDS website management > Knowledge management and organization for large companies, both for > internal use and for external presentation to customers > > 3. Aerospace data modelling > Engineering catalogs: many other examples, see also Ruediger Klein's > email, IMAT project on indexing technical manuals, etc. Is there a link > with the STEP world (e.g. the "application protocols")? We could learn > from their representation problems in Express. > > 4. Antique furniture image collection > art-image catalogs: every museum and art collection with some self > respect seems to be working on this. There are also musea cooperating in > "virtual museum" projects (e.g. Rijksmuseum Amsterdam). > > 5. Open hypermedia > Navigating document collections for (virtual) organizations; this use > case in some sense a similar flavor as (2). > > Did we miss out an important category? > If you can, please also provide as much as possible concrete "challenge > problems" arising from the use cases. > > Greetings, Guus > > [I'll be teaching a Ph.D. course next week, so my email processing will > be a bit slow at times] > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > USE-CASE AREA: Collection Management > > Guus Schreiber (editor) > Version: 14 december, 2001 > > MEMBERS: > Stephen Buswell <StephenB@stilo.com> > Nicholas Gibbins <nmg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, > Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>, > Michael K. Smith <michael.smith@eds.com> > > > General structure of the use-case area description > - definition/scope of the area: tasks, typical domains, users > - links to other areas > - resulting list of language requirements arising from use cases > - 3-5 detailed use-case descriptions > > --------------------------- > SCOPE AND DEFINITION > --------------------------- > > Characteristics: > * Large data/text/image/multimedia/website sets with a common > theme/context/focus > * fixed set of items in archive/collection > * can be very large set => scalability issues > * typically domain specific, therefore linked to (traditional) work on > domain standards > * focus is on metadata => link to traditional metadata > > Collection-management subtasks: > * item indexing/annotation/classification > * collection updates > * collection search > * often involves default reasoning > > > --------------------------- > LINKS TO OTHER AREAS/ISSUES/TASKS > --------------------------- > > 1. Virtual catalogs > > Examples: > - virtual museum (several projects) > - product search/comparison sites (e.g., Lynn Stein's book > identification, Mike Dean's hotels) > . > There is a clear link jere to the "interoperability" area. Virtual > catalogs typically requires ontology-mapping stuff. Also, it makes the > collection management task different as less assumptions can be made > about the collection (e.g., its size). > > 2. Service catalogs > > These are mentioned in a number of use cases. With respect to the > declarative aspects of service description and search, there is a > clear link between "web services" and this area. <to be worked out> > > 3. Presentation generation > > Semantically annotated catalogs are an ideal substrate for > (context-specific) generation of presentations c.q. web pages. Example: > dynamic > configuration of a web page for browsers of an art catalog, showing > related texts and images. > > Example: > - work Lynda Hardman (CWI, Amsterdam) > - open hypermedia?!: generation of links based on ontologies (Nick > Gibbins, Southampton) > > 4. Conceptual search > > In conceptual search we would like to view the whole web as one indexed > catalog. This seems to be a bridge too far at the moment, given the > problems we still have a domain-specific catalogs. A realistic > scenario for the short-term conceptual search is a two-step process: > 1. use an Open-Directory like mechanism to constrain your search to an > area which hopefully provides some archives/catalogs > 2. use the semantic search engines of the catalogs to find an answer to > your query. > > 5. Content standards > > Due to the domain specificity of catalogs, many of them require a > clear link with domain standards/vocabularies (existing or under > development). These domain standards were typically developed to > support manual indexing. > > Also, more general resources such as WordNet are being used. > > > --------------------------- > RESULTING LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS > --------------------------- > > Some preliminary examples (numbers refer to use cases below): > - default knowledge / default reasoning (1, 2, 4) > - constraints (2, 3, 4) > - consistency rules (3) > - some notion of aggregation (3, 4) > - statements at class and at instance level (2, 3, 4) > - (WebOnt representation of thesauri / domain standards: AAT, TGN, > WordNet) (1, 4) > > > --------------------------- > USE-CASE DESCRIPTIONS > --------------------------- > > 1. Arkive: catalog of endangered species descriptions > Contributor: Jeremy Carrol, HP > > <cut&paste of Jeremy's email> > > The arkive project is creating a multimedial database consisiting of > a record for each endangered species. > > The database aims at completeness, with enough appropriate information > for each species. > > The database is accessed through a web site and targetted at users at > all levels of expertise: ranging from school children through to > domain expert. > > The key functions of ontological knowledge are: > + to allow consistent organization of each species record > + to provide a means for ensuring that each species record is > sufficiently detailed, and includes examples of each important > behaviour. > + to help with query across the database > > Other functions where ontological knowledge maybe useful include > organising annotations and providence of knowledge. > > We note that: > - despite the relevant science having had about two centuries of > debate there is no universal agreement about appropriate > ontologies for full and adequate species descriptions. > - the number of species suggests that globally a federated solution > is needed. The British participants have funding to make records > of all British species, and the top N globally endangered species. > The long-term plan would be to have people world-wide contributing > records for their local species. This is likely to exacerbate the > lack of agreement about the underlying ontologies. > > > TASK: > Organising, and commisioning multimedia records of > endangered species. > > EXAMPLE DOMAIN: > multimedia records of endangered species. > > TYPICAL USERS: > 1: scientist making a specific record. > 2: manager commissioning new records. > 3: scientist querying DB through web-site > 4: school child querying DB through web-site > > ONTOLOGY SAMPLES: > I will need to get back to my informant for better data. > I rapidly get out of my depth biologically in this point > in the presentations I have seen. > > Currently they use about ten master record-templates for the > different top-level categories. > For example, there is typically no "locomotion" field for > plants, but it is of interest for animals. > > These top-level categories are necessarily insufficient in > that they cover (only) the general types of behaviour. > Any unique or rare behaviour of a species is: > + important to include in the record > + not in the top-level category > also such behaviours are subject to scientific debate. > (A concrete example was to do with birds that pick up > poisionous insects in their beaks and rub them against their > feathers. It is contentious whether they do this: > + to get high > + to kill off parasites in their feathers > The name you use for the behaviour depends on your judgement > on its motivation; which may well depend on your political persuasion.) > > There are also some behaviours whcih have multiple different > names that are synonymous. > > Default inheritance is important. The well known penguins issue: > living things don't fly > birds do fly > penguins don't fly > > This can be addressed when first creating a record, when default > values can be filled in, to be changed if necessary, or more > dynamically. > > It is important to relate the category information back to > multiple (partially inconsistent) taxonomies in the field. > > > WEBONT REQUIREMENTS > > Hard to say - there are a range of knowledge base requirements, > which ones actually belong to the ontological subsystem is > problematic. > > - Hierarchical classes with inheritance of properties, > default values, etc. Probably single inheritance would > suffice. > - Providence: to distinguish facts that are in the > specific record, from later annotations by experts or > non-experts, from inherited facts etc. > - Query support. Query may be guided by category information, > and possibly by falsehoods (e.g. "whales are fish" may be > useful to help small children search, who might otherwise > conclude there are no whales in the DB) > Mixed mode query - both free text and category information. > - Multiple synonymous labels for properties and values. > Theasural support. > - Ability to extend ontology on the fly, in a distributed > fashion. (Experts adding framework to describe the special > behaviour of their species). > > > 2. EDS web page landfill > Contribitor: Miker Smith, EDS > > TASK: Organizing a massive web page land-fill into hierarchical > categories > in support of corporate communication and corporate memory. > > EXAMPLE DOMAIN: External press releases, product offerings and case > studies, > corporate procedures, internal product briefings and comparisons, white > papers, and offering process descriptions. > > TYPICAL USER: Salesperson looking for sales collateral relevant to a > client's expressed interest. Technical person looking for pockets of > specific technical expertise and detailed past experience. > > ONTOLOGY SAMPLES: Document type hierarchy: Press release <- press > release > covering financial details <- press release detailing SEC filings .... > Solution descriptions that include part-whole relations and constraints > covering software, hardware, and communication compatibility. > > WEBONT REQUIREMENTS: Defaults and constraints. Language neutral > representation. Instances distinct from classes. > > We need a clean interface between Web Ontologies and more mainstream > business and manufacturing XML standards. > > > 3. Aerospace Engineering Data Modelling > Contributor: Stephen Buswell, Stilo > > TASK: Organizing a large body of aerospace engineering documentation > into cross-linked hierarchical categories > in support of corporate communication and corporate memory. > > EXAMPLE DOMAIN: Aircraft design documentation; manufacturing process > documentation; testing process documentation; maintenance documentation; > illustrations > > TYPICAL USER: Maintenance engineer looking for all information relating > to a particular part (eg. 'wing-spar'). Design engineer looking at > constraints on re-use of a particular sub-assembly. > > ONTOLOGY SAMPLES: Document type hierarchy: > Document <- Design Document <- Sub-assembly design doc .... > Component type heirarchy: > ManufacturingComponent <- wings-spar > > Solution descriptions that include part-whole relations > [wing-spar ispartof wing-assembly] > and constraints > [wing-spar.length < wing.length] > and relations > [this.document.this-picture illustrates wing-spar] > and instances > [A380 isinstance of Aircraft] > > WEBONT REQUIREMENTS: Defaults and constraints. Language neutral > representation. Instances distinct from classes. > > We need a clean interface between Web Ontologies and more mainstream > business and manufacturing XML standards. > > > 4. Art-image collections > Contributor: Guus Schreiber, Ibrow / University of Amsterdam > > TASK: searching a digital image collection > > EXAMPLE DOMAIN: museum collection of images of antique furniture > > TYPICAL USER: lay person with some basic knowledge of the domain, > looking for some piece of antique > > ONTOLOGY SAMPLES: > > The basis of our ontology is formed by the Art and Architecture > Thesaurus (AAT) [1] constructed by the Getty Foundation, which > provides a highly structured hierarchy of some 120.000 terms to > describe art objects (art categories, materials, styles, color, > ....). We also have a description template for antique furniture based > on the VRA 3.0 standard [2], which is basically a refinement of Dublin > Core for art-image annotation > > Let's for the moment assume we can represent AAT and VRA in > WebOnt. For effective search support we need to add domain knowledge > to this ontology. This knowledge typically takes the form of > inter-slot constraints within the image description template. One > example: > > style/period = "Late Georgian" > => > culture = "British" AND > date.created = 1760, 1811 > > [Style/period, culture and date.created are all VRA data elements > defined as slots for our art-object description template.] > > We could not define this constraint in RDFS and (a little to our > surprise) > we saw no way of expressing it in DAML+OIL either (we could have > misread the spec, we would be glad to be proven wrong). > > This type of semantical information is essential to show added value > of semantic annotations. > > WEBONT REQUIREMENTS > possibility to define inter-slot constraints of a class > > > > [1] The Art and Architecture Thesaurus > http://shiva.pub.getty.edu. > > [2] Visual Resources Association~Standards Committee. > VRA core categories, version 3.0. > Technical report, Visual Resources Association, July 2000. > http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/~staffaw3/vra/vracore3.htm. > > > 5. Conceptual Open Hypermedia > Contributor: Nick Gibbins, University of Southampton > > TASK: > Providing an overlay of hypertext links onto a corpus (a linkbase) > in order to improve navigation by browsing through the corpus. > > EXAMPLE DOMAIN: > Organisational and research documents generated by an academic > institution. > > TYPICAL USERS: > > 1. novice user who needs further explanation of terms in documents > (eg. information on people mentioned in documents) > 2. experienced user who knows rough location of desired > information and is prepared to browse to find it > 3. experienced user annotating documents (associating terms in > documents with ontology entities), so allowing new links to be > created > > ONTOLOGY SAMPLES: > > The ontology is based in part on Dublin Core (describing > bibliographic metadata), but also requires some representation of > the content of the documents (departmental board minutes, grant > applications, etc) in order to describe their contents (or rather, > those entities which are referred to in their contents). > > WEBONT REQUIREMENTS: > > referring to instances (eg. people) by means of their properties > > composition of relations > - required to specify certain types of links (eg. a link to the > homepage of the author of a document) > > ability to define lexical terms which commonly denote entities > - for example, the lexical term "Nick Gibbins" is commonly used > to refer to the person with email address nmg@ecs.soton.ac.uk > - denotation of these terms is not necessarily static. > for example, the lexical term "head of department" refers to > different individuals based on the context in which it is used > (publication date of the document in which the term appears) > > provenance > - no explicit author of links, but provenance of links is that of > the facts from which they are constructed > > > -- > A. Th. Schreiber, SWI, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15 > NL-1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Tel: +31 20 525 6793 > Fax: +31 20 525 6896; E-mail: schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl > WWW: http://www.swi.psy.uva.nl/usr/Schreiber/home.html >
Received on Monday, 17 December 2001 11:05:40 UTC