Hi Herli, let me reply to both of your mails here, including the mail that you posted to [email protected]. As I said, the OMDoc mailing list (http://lists.jacobs-university.de/mailman/listinfo/project-omdoc) will be the most appropriate place for discussing the details, so let us know when you got subscribed there.
So you already have an OWL ontology for physics and want to _add_ information about mathematical formulae and inferences? Or do you want to start from scratch and are looking for the right ontology language? > My dissertation project is about representing Physical Science concepts. As > first step i wrote an OWL ontology. However, OWL2 language has no sufficient > expressiveness to represent assertions like: > For all field F, if rot F = 0 then F is a conservative field. It is right that OWL cannot express this, and that OMDoc can. The question is what you want to do with that information. If you want to publish it on the web, OMDoc (and then XHTML+MathML generated from it) is a good choice. If you want to publish it on paper, you might consider writing it down in sTeX, the LaTeX syntax for OMDoc, as that gives you both OMDoc and high-quality PDF. If you want to do automated reasoning, there are various (mostly half-done) translators from OMDoc to the native languages of proof assistants. If you want to do queries over the structure of a document collection, OMDoc together with the TNTBase database is a good choice. See https://svn.omdoc.org/repos/jomdoc/doc/pubs/eswc-demo10/gencs-lod.pdf for a recent publication that covers all of these topics. Given that OWL ontologies for physics already exist (e.g. SWEET: http://sweet.jpl.nasa.gov/2.0/) you may want to go for a combination. Combining OMDoc with OWL ontologies is partly described in https://svn.omdoc.org/repos/omdoc/trunk/doc/blue/foaf/mkm09.pdf, but there has been further work done since then. You basically have the following possibilities: * You can convert an OWL ontology to OMDoc to get started * You can author OWL ontologies in OMDoc, which gives you additional expressivity, better ways of modeling modularity, and better documentation facilities. * The OWL-compatible subset of such an ontology can be converted back to OWL. * Ontologies implemented in OMDoc can reference existing ontologies implemented in OWL. * Any OMDoc document can contain arbitrary RDFa metadata. Those can also be used to establish links to existing ontologies. 2010-03-25 12:59 Herli Joaquim de Menezes <[email protected]>: > I tried to repeat some examples of this book using Eclipse Web Tools got no > succes because some lines expressing dc: at XML code are not recognized by > Eclipse. Should I drop Eclipse and do this from the scratch using Emacs, for > example? I have not worked on OMDoc with Eclipse either, but it should work. You can try to delete the <!DOCTYPE> declaration, if that is the problem. As long as the dc:* namespace is declared, everything should work. Using the DTD is not advisable anyway for what _you_ need, as the new ontology- and RDFa-related facilities are currently only implemented in the work-in-progress version OMDoc 1.3, whose DTD is not up date, or which will no longer have a DTD at all. But there is an up-to-date Relax NG schema at https://svn.omdoc.org/repos/omdoc/branches/omdoc-1.3/rnc. That is known to work with Emacs's nxml-mode. For detailed Eclipse questions you might want to ask our Eclipse expert Constantin Jucovschi, who is working on an Eclipse plugin for sTeX (see http://kwarc.info/kohlhase/submit/mkm10-stexide.pdf) > 1. there is no means to represent mathematical formulas in OWL Right, but as said above it depends on what you want to do with the formulae. If you want to do automated inference or e.g. computer algebra, you will need OpenMath or OMDoc. But the SWEET ontology can also represent certain superficial characteristics of mathematical operations in OWL. > 2. the inference engine of OWL DL does not handle mathematical assertions > and there is no means to handle mathematical inferences, because there is no > way to evaluate expressions in OWL So it seems you do need OMDoc. > 3. I am trying to write some piece of xml code using OmDoc and integrate by > means of imports in OWL ontology. Not sure how you want to do this. But one of the OMDoc/OWL migration paths mentioned above should help. > Im using as reference Kohlhase's OmDoc1.2 book. This book is somewhat outdated but still the most comprehensive overview of the OMDoc XML syntax and tools (without certain extensions made in the meantime). You might also find these useful: https://svn.omdoc.org/repos/omdoc/branches/omdoc-1.3/doc/spec (OMDoc 1.3 spec, work in progress) http://omdoc.org/pubs.html (OMDoc-related publications) Finally, if a trip to Paris in July is realistic for you, we are preparing a "content math training camp" co-located with the CICM conference (http://cicm2010.cnam.fr/). It will take place from July 5 to 7. That would be a good opportunity for getting a hands-on experience on OpenMath, OMDoc and related tools. The overall conference will extend to July 10 and host more events that might be interesting for you. Cheers, Christoph -- Christoph Lange, Jacobs Univ. Bremen, http://kwarc.info/clange, Skype duke4701
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Om mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om
