Re: [Crm-sig] Re.: [crm-sig] cidoc 4.2 in owl + alignment to DOLCE-Ultralight PLEASE RESPOND
Dear Guenther, Thank you very much for your message. Once you have invested already in that work, would you like to further coordinate the effort? Who else? I would not like to coordinate this. I think the most effective way to deal with it is, as you say, to present the alternatives, discuss the alternatives in a physical meeting in a way that non-techies can follow what the intellectual consequences are, and create a version for public comment for the site. Since OWL is quite expressive and there is a growing OWL user community, I suggest as an ISSUE to discuss, if we should maintain an "official" OWL interpretation of the CRM. Best, Martin Guenther Goerz wrote: Dear colleagues, a while ago I wrote to Aldo whether he will continue to work on an OWL version of the CRM aiming at an upgrade to version 4.2. At that time he answered that he was not planning to do that and he sent me the results of his work on version 3.4.9 to use it for further development if we like to. I talked to Martin about that, expressing our interest to pursue this issue further, but of course avoiding duplicate work. Martin said that he was not aware of any other group --- including FORTH already implementing or planning to implement a new OWL version in the near future. So, we looked for a student and finally found one who started to work on with a new implementation of 4.2 in OWL as a study project several months ago. Now, he is nearly finished and of course we will make the result of our work --- OWL code and documentation (in German, sorry) --- available to the community as soon as it is ready. Furthermore, we are planning to present it at the Nuremberg workshop. So, I was a bit surprised by Aldo's last message --- obviously communication in our community is sort of suboptimal. Of course, I strongly support any effort to integrate everything what has been done so far. Perhaps we should use the Nuremberg workshop to set up a subgroup aiming at the implementation of a reference version 4.2+ in OWL; obviously there are several issues we have to agree on: problems in the current 4.2 document, representational alternatives, alignment with DOLCE, etc. Furthermore, we should nominate a coordinator to avoid duplicate work in the future. Best regards, -- Guenther Prof. Dr. Guenther GoerzFon: (+49 9131) 852-8701; -8702 Univ. Erlangen-NuernbergFax: (+49 9131) 852-8986 Institut f. Informatik 8/KI goerz AT informatik.uni-erlangen.de Haberstrasse 2 ggoerz AT csli.stanford.edu D-91058 ERLANGEN http://www8.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/inf8/en/goerz.html On 6/13/07, martin wrote: Dear Detlev, Aldo, I would much appreciate such an effort. We at FORTH would clearly participate. Who else would like to participate? PLEASE RESPOND. I will put the idea on the issues list, and suggest to discuss details in the CRM-SIG meeting Dec. 4-7 in Nuremberg. Best, martin Detlev Balzer wrote: > Aldo Gangemi wrote: > >>Dear CRM specialists, I'd like to point you at a new OWL version of >>CIDOC 4.2, which I have produced for other purposes. It is based on the >>official RDFS version, and besides the semantic translation, it only >>includes a guess about the datatypes used in some CIDOC properties. >>Please refer to file documentation for details (I've put it in a ftp >>area of my lab, but if you find it useful, please copy it where >>appropriate: >> >>http://www.loa-cnr.it/ontologies/CIDOC/cidoc_v4.2.owl > > > I like the idea of expressing alignments between ontologies > using OWL constructs such as equivalentClass. > However, a straight automatic translation from RDFS to OWL misses > the opportunity to formalize some of the (textual) definitions > from the CIDOC CRM that cannot be expressed in RDF Schema. > > Wouldn't it be useful to include some more definitions (explicit > and implicit) from the reference model? As an example, pairs of > inverse properties are identified by the letters B and F appended > to the numerical part of the property name. This is mnemonics for > humans, but not easily processed by machines. However, it can > easily be made processable by using the owl:inverseOf statement. > There are further examples such as the disjointness of some > classes (explicitly mentioned in the text) or the transitivity of > some properties (e.g. P120F.occurs_before). One could go even further > and declare P57F.has_number_of_parts as owl:FunctionalProperty, > assuming that no instance of E19.Physical_Object can consist of > different numbers of parts at a given time. > > How does the SIG think about a coordinated effort that would > eventually result in an official OWL representation of the model? > Some work has already been done and I think it shouldn't be too > hard to reach a consensus on what to express in OWL language > constructs, and what to leave out. > > Best wishes, > Detlev >
Re: [Crm-sig] Re.: [crm-sig] cidoc 4.2 in owl + alignment to DOLCE-Ultralight PLEASE RESPOND
Dear colleagues, a while ago I wrote to Aldo whether he will continue to work on an OWL version of the CRM aiming at an upgrade to version 4.2. At that time he answered that he was not planning to do that and he sent me the results of his work on version 3.4.9 to use it for further development if we like to. I talked to Martin about that, expressing our interest to pursue this issue further, but of course avoiding duplicate work. Martin said that he was not aware of any other group --- including FORTH already implementing or planning to implement a new OWL version in the near future. So, we looked for a student and finally found one who started to work on with a new implementation of 4.2 in OWL as a study project several months ago. Now, he is nearly finished and of course we will make the result of our work --- OWL code and documentation (in German, sorry) --- available to the community as soon as it is ready. Furthermore, we are planning to present it at the Nuremberg workshop. So, I was a bit surprised by Aldo's last message --- obviously communication in our community is sort of suboptimal. Of course, I strongly support any effort to integrate everything what has been done so far. Perhaps we should use the Nuremberg workshop to set up a subgroup aiming at the implementation of a reference version 4.2+ in OWL; obviously there are several issues we have to agree on: problems in the current 4.2 document, representational alternatives, alignment with DOLCE, etc. Furthermore, we should nominate a coordinator to avoid duplicate work in the future. Best regards, -- Guenther Prof. Dr. Guenther GoerzFon: (+49 9131) 852-8701; -8702 Univ. Erlangen-NuernbergFax: (+49 9131) 852-8986 Institut f. Informatik 8/KI goerz AT informatik.uni-erlangen.de Haberstrasse 2 ggoerz AT csli.stanford.edu D-91058 ERLANGEN http://www8.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/inf8/en/goerz.html On 6/13/07, martin wrote: Dear Detlev, Aldo, I would much appreciate such an effort. We at FORTH would clearly participate. Who else would like to participate? PLEASE RESPOND. I will put the idea on the issues list, and suggest to discuss details in the CRM-SIG meeting Dec. 4-7 in Nuremberg. Best, martin Detlev Balzer wrote: > Aldo Gangemi wrote: > >>Dear CRM specialists, I'd like to point you at a new OWL version of >>CIDOC 4.2, which I have produced for other purposes. It is based on the >>official RDFS version, and besides the semantic translation, it only >>includes a guess about the datatypes used in some CIDOC properties. >>Please refer to file documentation for details (I've put it in a ftp >>area of my lab, but if you find it useful, please copy it where >>appropriate: >> >>http://www.loa-cnr.it/ontologies/CIDOC/cidoc_v4.2.owl > > > I like the idea of expressing alignments between ontologies > using OWL constructs such as equivalentClass. > However, a straight automatic translation from RDFS to OWL misses > the opportunity to formalize some of the (textual) definitions > from the CIDOC CRM that cannot be expressed in RDF Schema. > > Wouldn't it be useful to include some more definitions (explicit > and implicit) from the reference model? As an example, pairs of > inverse properties are identified by the letters B and F appended > to the numerical part of the property name. This is mnemonics for > humans, but not easily processed by machines. However, it can > easily be made processable by using the owl:inverseOf statement. > There are further examples such as the disjointness of some > classes (explicitly mentioned in the text) or the transitivity of > some properties (e.g. P120F.occurs_before). One could go even further > and declare P57F.has_number_of_parts as owl:FunctionalProperty, > assuming that no instance of E19.Physical_Object can consist of > different numbers of parts at a given time. > > How does the SIG think about a coordinated effort that would > eventually result in an official OWL representation of the model? > Some work has already been done and I think it shouldn't be too > hard to reach a consensus on what to express in OWL language > constructs, and what to leave out. > > Best wishes, > Detlev > > ___ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > -- -- Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625| Principle Researcher | Fax:+30(2810)391638| | Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr | | Center for Cultural Informatics | Information Systems Laboratory| Institute of Computer Science| Foundation
Re: [Crm-sig] Re.: [crm-sig] cidoc 4.2 in owl + alignment to DOLCE-Ultralight PLEASE RESPOND
Dear Detlev, Aldo, I would much appreciate such an effort. We at FORTH would clearly participate. Who else would like to participate? PLEASE RESPOND. I will put the idea on the issues list, and suggest to discuss details in the CRM-SIG meeting Dec. 4-7 in Nuremberg. Best, martin Detlev Balzer wrote: Aldo Gangemi wrote: Dear CRM specialists, I'd like to point you at a new OWL version of CIDOC 4.2, which I have produced for other purposes. It is based on the official RDFS version, and besides the semantic translation, it only includes a guess about the datatypes used in some CIDOC properties. Please refer to file documentation for details (I've put it in a ftp area of my lab, but if you find it useful, please copy it where appropriate: http://www.loa-cnr.it/ontologies/CIDOC/cidoc_v4.2.owl I like the idea of expressing alignments between ontologies using OWL constructs such as equivalentClass. However, a straight automatic translation from RDFS to OWL misses the opportunity to formalize some of the (textual) definitions from the CIDOC CRM that cannot be expressed in RDF Schema. Wouldn't it be useful to include some more definitions (explicit and implicit) from the reference model? As an example, pairs of inverse properties are identified by the letters B and F appended to the numerical part of the property name. This is mnemonics for humans, but not easily processed by machines. However, it can easily be made processable by using the owl:inverseOf statement. There are further examples such as the disjointness of some classes (explicitly mentioned in the text) or the transitivity of some properties (e.g. P120F.occurs_before). One could go even further and declare P57F.has_number_of_parts as owl:FunctionalProperty, assuming that no instance of E19.Physical_Object can consist of different numbers of parts at a given time. How does the SIG think about a coordinated effort that would eventually result in an official OWL representation of the model? Some work has already been done and I think it shouldn't be too hard to reach a consensus on what to express in OWL language constructs, and what to leave out. Best wishes, Detlev ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig -- -- Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625| Principle Researcher | Fax:+30(2810)391638| | Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr | | Center for Cultural Informatics | Information Systems Laboratory| Institute of Computer Science| Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) | | Vassilika Vouton,P.O.Box1385,GR71110 Heraklion,Crete,Greece | | Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl | --
[Crm-sig] Re.: [crm-sig] cidoc 4.2 in owl + alignment to DOLCE-Ultralight
Aldo Gangemi wrote: > Dear CRM specialists, I'd like to point you at a new OWL version of > CIDOC 4.2, which I have produced for other purposes. It is based on the > official RDFS version, and besides the semantic translation, it only > includes a guess about the datatypes used in some CIDOC properties. > Please refer to file documentation for details (I've put it in a ftp > area of my lab, but if you find it useful, please copy it where > appropriate: > > http://www.loa-cnr.it/ontologies/CIDOC/cidoc_v4.2.owl I like the idea of expressing alignments between ontologies using OWL constructs such as equivalentClass. However, a straight automatic translation from RDFS to OWL misses the opportunity to formalize some of the (textual) definitions from the CIDOC CRM that cannot be expressed in RDF Schema. Wouldn't it be useful to include some more definitions (explicit and implicit) from the reference model? As an example, pairs of inverse properties are identified by the letters B and F appended to the numerical part of the property name. This is mnemonics for humans, but not easily processed by machines. However, it can easily be made processable by using the owl:inverseOf statement. There are further examples such as the disjointness of some classes (explicitly mentioned in the text) or the transitivity of some properties (e.g. P120F.occurs_before). One could go even further and declare P57F.has_number_of_parts as owl:FunctionalProperty, assuming that no instance of E19.Physical_Object can consist of different numbers of parts at a given time. How does the SIG think about a coordinated effort that would eventually result in an official OWL representation of the model? Some work has already been done and I think it shouldn't be too hard to reach a consensus on what to express in OWL language constructs, and what to leave out. Best wishes, Detlev
