Hi Urho,
Thanks for your explanation!
You said that the headers of sender, to and cc are redundant and could be
dropped, is my understanding right? But why not have the contact instances (see
below) dropped instead? So I still don't see how creating Contact instances for
every from/to/cc field makes any sense. Can you shed light on that? Thanks for
your effort!
{{
<urn:uuid:[email protected]> a nco:Contact;
nco:fullname "Darron Davison duisaliquam WORK ACCOUNT ";
nco:emailAddress "[email protected]".
<urn:uuid:[email protected]> a nco:Contact;
nco:fullname "Me Myself";
nco:hasEmailAddress <mailto:[email protected]>.
<urn:uuid:[email protected]> a nco:Contact;
nco:hasEmailAddress <mailto:[email protected]>.
}}
Best,
Mark
________________________________
From: Urho Konttori <[email protected]>
To: ext Sw Fan <[email protected]>
Cc: Leo Sauermann <[email protected]>; Ivan Frade <[email protected]>;
[email protected]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 4:17:52 PM
Subject: Re: [people] (no subject)
Hi Mark,
I'll just comment in quickly. The model is not aesthetically pleasing, but it
works.
Once you drop Leos assumption that a new nco:Contact has to be made for every
single instance of to, from, cc, bcc or every email, and, instead, modify it to
only create those in case the email address does not exist, the model will not
be really replicating that much datat. It will not make intuitive sense at any
point, especially with the PersonContact being a subclass of Contact, which is
really confusing me a lot, but the model does work, so it's hard to say it's a
bug in the ontology structure, it's much more of a problem in naming
convention, and perhaps the inheritance of that class, so, I do agree with you
totally Mark, but I do see Leos point. Here is an example:
I first define 2 person contacts, me and darron and email addresses for both.
then I define the contacts related to the email, and then the email object.
Now, the link between PersonContacts and the Contact objects will of course
happen through the EmailAddress object (or the uris). Notice that Darron has a
different name in his Contact instance than in his personcontact instance. I
also added cc contact that doesn't even have a name, nor a personcontact.
The email has now headers that cover sender, to and cc, but these are redundant
with the contact mapping, so they could indeed be dropped.
<mailto:[email protected]> a nco:EmailAddress;
nco:emailAddress "[email protected]".
<urn:uuid:1> a nco:PersonContact;
nco:fullname "Me Myself";
nco:nameGiven "Me";
nco:nameFamily "Myself";
nco:birthDate "2008-01-01";
nco:hasEmailAddress <mailto:[email protected]>.
<mailto:[email protected]> a nco:EmailAddress;
nco:emailAddress "[email protected]".
<mailto:[email protected]> a nco:EmailAddress;
nco:emailAddress "[email protected]".
<urn:uuid:1629001709> a nco:PersonContact;
nco:fullname "Darron Davison";
nco:nameGiven "Darron";
nco:nameFamily "Davison";
nco:birthDate "1930-01-04";
nco:title "Sales Representative Computers";
nco:hasEmailAddress <mailto:[email protected]>;
nco:hasEmailAddress <mailto:[email protected]>;
nco:hasPhoneNumber <tel:+14849562430>;
nco:hasPostalAddress <urn:uuid:2118792036>.
<urn:uuid:[email protected]> a nco:Contact;
nco:fullname "Darron Davison duisaliquam WORK ACCOUNT ";
nco:emailAddress "[email protected]".
<urn:uuid:[email protected]> a nco:Contact;
nco:fullname "Me Myself";
nco:hasEmailAddress <mailto:[email protected]>.
<urn:uuid:[email protected]> a nco:Contact;
nco:hasEmailAddress <mailto:[email protected]>.
<urn:uuid:597366485> a nmo:Email;
nmo:to <urn:uuid:[email protected]>;
nmo:from <urn:uuid:[email protected]>;
nmo:cc <urn:uuid:[email protected]>;
nmo:sentDate "2008-10-20T15:28:21";
nmo:receivedDate "2008-10-20T15:28:59";
nmo:contentMimeType "text/plain";
nmo:messageHeader [nmo:headerName "User-Agent"; nmo:headerValue
"tin/unoff-1.3-BETA-970813 (UNIX) (Linux/2.0.30 (i486)) "];
nmo:messageHeader [nmo:headerName "from"; nmo:headerValue
"[email protected]"];
nmo:messageHeader [nmo:headerName "to"; nmo:headerValue "[email protected]"];
nmo:messageHeader [nmo:headerName "cc"; nmo:headerValue
"[email protected]"];
nmo:messageSubject "Commodoconsequat tationullamcorper in feugait hendrerit
te duis te aliquam lobortis. ";
nmo:plainTextMessageContent "Nibh nostrud eum nonummy facilisis ex tincidunt
praesent delenit facilisis veniam ad facilisi exerci. Nulla nonummy at
eufeugiat nulla diam. Vel amet feugiat consequat amet minim vel iusto feugiat
sit at blandit veniamquis ullamcorper. Facilisi erat in feugait ad. Doloremagna
Utwisi iriure feugait eros blandit delenit dolore delenit facilisi
commodoconsequat consectetuer. "..
> Dear Ivan & Leo,
>
> Thanks for your replies! I read the comment by Leo for the ticket #698
> (http://dev.nepomuk.semanticdesktop.org/ticket/698), but I still don't
> understand why a new nco:Contact instance should be created for each email's
> from field.
>
> I thought we use RDF to get data entities connected, eliminating dupliated
> and siloed data and building a web of data. Isn't it?
>
> However, I don't see this can be achieved by creating fresh nco:Contact
> instances for every email's "from" field. So why bother transforming the raw
> data into RDF?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Best,
> Mark
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Leo Sauermann <[email protected]>
> *To:* Ivan Frade <[email protected]>
> *Cc:* ext Sw Fan <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 21, 2009 11:43:48 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [people] (no subject)
>
> The short answer is:
>
> create fresh nco:Contact instances for every email's "from" field to
> represent mails thouroughly.
>
> best
> Leo
>
> It was Ivan Frade who said at the right time 21.01.2009 09:10 the following
> words:
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> You are not the only one with that problem. There is ticket open about
>> that issue with an interesting discussion:
>>
>> http://dev.nepomuk.semanticdesktop.org/ticket/698
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>> El mar, 20-01-2009 a las 23:40 -0800, ext Sw Fan escribió:
>>
>>> Hi all, I was investigating the Nepomuk ontologies these days, and I found
>>> out
>>> that, in NMO, the property from was defined with domain as
>>> nmo:Message and range as nco:Contact. I wonder why the range of from
>>> was defined as Contact, instead of EmailAddress, since a given Contact
>>> can have more than one email addresses. So based on the constraint
>>> imposed by the ontology, one will not be able to tell which email
>>> address (suppose he has more than one) was used by the contact to send
>>> the message. Anything I missed in this context? Thanks for your
>>> clarification!
>>> Cheers,
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> people mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://lists.semanticdesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/people
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> people mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.semanticdesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/people
>>
>>
>
>
> -- ____________________________________________________
> DI Leo Sauermann http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann
> Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Kuenstliche Intelligenz DFKI GmbH
> Trippstadter Strasse 122
> P.O. Box 2080 Fon: +49 631 20575-116
> D-67663 Kaiserslautern Fax: +49 631 20575-102
> Germany Mail: [email protected]
>
> Geschaeftsfuehrung:
> Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c.mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender)
> Dr. Walter Olthoff
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
> Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
> Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
> ____________________________________________________
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> people mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.semanticdesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/people
>
_______________________________________________
people mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.semanticdesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/people
