Re: How do you explore a SPARQL Endpoint?
We had occasion to need this ability on an application we were building for a client using a triple store (TS). Triples were being created using scripts and being updated into the TS,we also had an application that allowed users to enter information which added more triples. All of this was backed by an ontology that was evolving. It was pretty tricking knowing what parts of the ontology were being exercised and which were not. So we wrote some SPARQL queries that produced a table where each row said something like this: There are 543 triples where the subject is of type Person and the predicate is employedBy and the object is of type Organization. A row looked like this: Subject On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Lushan Han lush...@umbc.edu wrote: This work [1] might be helpful to some people. It automatically learns a schema from a given RDF dataset, including most probable classes and properties and most probable relations/paths between given classes and etc. Next, it can automatically translate a casual user's intuitive graph query or schema-free query to a formal SPARQL query using the learned schema and statistical NLP techniques, like textual semantic similarity. [1] http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/paper/html/id/658/Schema-Free-Querying-of-Semantic-Data Cheers, Lushan On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Pavel Klinov pavel.kli...@uni-ulm.de wrote: On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Bernard Vatant bernard.vat...@mondeca.com wrote: Hi Pavel Very interesting discussion, thanks for the follow-up.. Some quick answers below, but I'm currently writing a blog post which will go in more details on the notion of Data Patterns, a term I've been pushing last week on the DC Architecture list, where it seems to have gained some traction. See https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A1=ind1501L=dc-architecture for the discussion. OK, thanks for the link, will check it out. I agree that the patterns is perhaps a better term than schema since by the latter people typically mean explicit specification. I guess it's my use of the term schema which created some confusion initially. ... which reflects what the data is all about. Knowing such structure is useful (and often necessary) to be able to write meaningful queries and that's, I think, what the initial question was. Certainly, and I would rewrite this question : How do you find out data patterns in a dataset? I think it's a more general and tough question having to do with data mining. Not sure that anyone would venture into finding out data patterns against a public endpoint just to be able to write queries for it. When such structure exists, I'd say that the dataset has an *implicit* schema (or a conceptual model, if you will). Well, that's where I don't follow. If data, as it happens more and more, is gathered from heterogeneous sources, the very notion of a conceptual model is jumping to conclusions. A merger of structures is still a structure. By anyways, I've already agreed to say patterns =) In natural languages, patterns often precede the grammar describing them, even if the patterns described in the grammar at some point become prescriptive rules. Data should be looked at the same way. Not sure. I won't immediately disagree since I don't have statistics regarding structured/unstructured datasets out there. What is absent is an explicit representation of the schema, or the conceptual model, in terms of RDFS, OWL, or SKOS axioms. When the dataset gathers various sources and various vocabularies, such a schema does not exists, actually. Not necessarily. Parts of it may exist. Take yago, for example. It's derived from a bunch of sources including Wikipedia and GeoNames and yet offers its schema for a separate download. However, when the schema *is* represented explicitly, knowing it is a huge help to users which otherwise know little about the data. OK, but the question is : which is a good format for exposing this structure? RDFS/OWL ontology/vocabulary, Application Profiles, RDF Shapes / whatever it will be named, or ... ? I think this question is a bit secondary. If the need were recognized, this could be, at least in theory, agreed on. PPS. It'd also be correct to claim that even when a structure exists, realistic data can be messy and not fit into it entirely. We've seen stuff like literals in the range of object properties, etc. It's a separate issue having to do with validation, for which there's an ongoing effort at W3C. However, it doesn't generally hinder writing queries which is what we're discussing here. Well I don't see it as a separate issue. All the raging debate around RDF Shapes is not (yet) about validation, but on the definition of what a shape/structure/schema can be. OK, won't disagree on this. Thanks, Pavel Since the very notion of schema for RDF data has
Re: How do you explore a SPARQL Endpoint?
Sorry, ignore priore email, it was sent prematurely. We had occasion to need the ability to eplore a triple store in an application we were building for a client using a triple store (TS). Triples were being created using scripts and being updated into the TS,we also had an application that allowed users to enter information which added more triples. All of this was backed by an ontology that was evolving. It was pretty tricking knowing what parts of the ontology were being exercised and which were not. So we wrote some SPARQL queries that produced a table where each row said something like this: There are 543 triples where the subject is of type Person and the predicate is employedBy and the object is of type Organization. The table looked a bit like this: SubjectPredicate Object Count Person hasEmployerOrganization 2344 Organization locatedInGeoRegion 432 We found this to be extremely useful, not only to see exactly what was being used, but also how much as well as what was NOT being used, which were candidates for removing from the ontology. The SPARQL queries are not simple to write, but they are not too bad either. Some of the other responses spoke of similar things. This is more specialized than the original question, which was to find out what the ontology was. Here were were more concerned about which parts of the ontology were being used. Michael On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Michael F Uschold usch...@gmail.com wrote: We had occasion to need this ability on an application we were building for a client using a triple store (TS). Triples were being created using scripts and being updated into the TS,we also had an application that allowed users to enter information which added more triples. All of this was backed by an ontology that was evolving. It was pretty tricking knowing what parts of the ontology were being exercised and which were not. So we wrote some SPARQL queries that produced a table where each row said something like this: There are 543 triples where the subject is of type Person and the predicate is employedBy and the object is of type Organization. A row looked like this: Subject On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Lushan Han lush...@umbc.edu wrote: This work [1] might be helpful to some people. It automatically learns a schema from a given RDF dataset, including most probable classes and properties and most probable relations/paths between given classes and etc. Next, it can automatically translate a casual user's intuitive graph query or schema-free query to a formal SPARQL query using the learned schema and statistical NLP techniques, like textual semantic similarity. [1] http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/paper/html/id/658/Schema-Free-Querying-of-Semantic-Data Cheers, Lushan On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Pavel Klinov pavel.kli...@uni-ulm.de wrote: On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Bernard Vatant bernard.vat...@mondeca.com wrote: Hi Pavel Very interesting discussion, thanks for the follow-up.. Some quick answers below, but I'm currently writing a blog post which will go in more details on the notion of Data Patterns, a term I've been pushing last week on the DC Architecture list, where it seems to have gained some traction. See https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A1=ind1501L=dc-architecture for the discussion. OK, thanks for the link, will check it out. I agree that the patterns is perhaps a better term than schema since by the latter people typically mean explicit specification. I guess it's my use of the term schema which created some confusion initially. ... which reflects what the data is all about. Knowing such structure is useful (and often necessary) to be able to write meaningful queries and that's, I think, what the initial question was. Certainly, and I would rewrite this question : How do you find out data patterns in a dataset? I think it's a more general and tough question having to do with data mining. Not sure that anyone would venture into finding out data patterns against a public endpoint just to be able to write queries for it. When such structure exists, I'd say that the dataset has an *implicit* schema (or a conceptual model, if you will). Well, that's where I don't follow. If data, as it happens more and more, is gathered from heterogeneous sources, the very notion of a conceptual model is jumping to conclusions. A merger of structures is still a structure. By anyways, I've already agreed to say patterns =) In natural languages, patterns often precede the grammar describing them, even if the patterns described in the grammar at some point become prescriptive rules. Data should be looked at the same way. Not sure. I won't immediately disagree since I don't have statistics regarding structured/unstructured datasets out there. What is absent is an explicit
Re: ontologies for SCADA and Smart Grid
Dear Miltion, Personally, I am also interested in sustainability - I will be grateful if you can point me to any ontologies that you find in this area. While I don't think there is much out there at this time, the following may be helpful to get started: 1. Toward knowledge structuring of sustainability science based on ontology engineeringhttp://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=1ved=0CCgQFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geraldkembellec.fr%2FdocOntology%2FToward%2520knowledge%2520structuring%2520of%2520sustainability%2520science%2520based%2520on%2520ontology%2520engineering.pdfei=gdlkT8WCJ4KbiQLS6rGiDwusg=AFQjCNGB0fVV21NyADMhTYkxjqGChEu_wA 2. Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG)http://www.tdwg.org/about-tdwg/ 3. Research on heterogeneous data integration for Smart Gridhttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F5550976%2F5563521%2F05564620.pdf%3Farnumber%3D5564620authDecision=-203 4. Smart Grid Maturity Model (SGMM) http://www.sei.cmu.edu/smartgrid/tools/index.cfm Professionally, I work for Semantic Artshttp://www.semanticarts.com/semantictechnology/how-we-design-semantic-technology/, whose core business includes developing ontologies for our clients. In the event that you wish to use our services, please do not hesitate to get in touch. Regards, Michael Michael Uschold, PhD Senior Ontology Consultant, Semantic Arts http://www.semanticarts.com LinkedIn: http://tr.im/limfu Skype, Twitter: UscholdM On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:04 AM, ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program metadataport...@yahoo.com wrote: I am looking for ontologies for SCADA and Smart Grid applications in particular in agro-industrial, (renewable) energy technology, water, sewage and waste water processing, production and distribution settings and for generalized industrial processes e.g. in manufacturing, multi-modal transportation and logistics. Milton Ponson GSM: +297 747 8280 PO Box 1154, Oranjestad Aruba, Dutch Caribbean Project Paradigm: A structured approach to bringing the tools for sustainable development to all stakeholders worldwide by creating ICT tools for NGOs worldwide and: providing online access to web sites and repositories of data and information for sustainable development This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Re: LOV - Linked Open Vocabularies
A step in the right direction. I look forward to the day when we move beyond vocabularies and have linked open ontologies. Michael On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Pierre-Yves Vandenbussche pierre-yves.vandenbuss...@mondeca.com wrote: Hello all, We are pleased to announce the Linked Open Vocabularies initiative [1]. The web of data is based on datasets publication. When building a dataset some questions arise: which existing vocabularies will be the best-suited for my needs? To facilitate this task we propose the Linked Open Vocabularies (LOV) dataset [1]. It identifies the defined vocabularies for data description but also the relationships between these vocabularies. The work within the LOV is not exhaustive but, by suggesting us some vocabulary modifications and/or creations, we could improve this dataset. You could access this dataset via an RDF/XML file [2] and via a SPARQL Endpoint [3]. [1] http://labs.mondeca.com/dataset/lov/index.html [2] http://labs.mondeca.com/dataset/lov/lov.rdf [3] http://labs.mondeca.com/endpoint/lov Pierre-Yves Vandenbussche, Bernard Vatant, Lise Rozat Research Development Mondeca 3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France Website: www.mondeca.com Lab: Mondeca Labs http://labs.mondeca.com/ -- Michael Uschold, PhD Senior Ontology Consultant, Semantic Arts LinkedIn: http://tr.im/limfu Skype, Twitter: UscholdM
Re: data schema / vocabulary / ontology / repositories
Ranking ontologies is indeed very personal, so is ranking of laptops, bicycles and books. But people rank them all the time. My first port of call is always Amazon. Might it work to have similar ratings for ontologies and vocabularies? The home for this could be OOR. Michael On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 2:15 AM, Bob Ferris z...@elbklang.net wrote: Hello everybody, Am 14.03.2011 09:28, schrieb Martin Hepp: Hi Dieter: There are several ontology repositories available on-line, but to my knowledge they all suffer from two serious limitations: 1. They do not rate ontologies by quality/relevance/popularity, so you do not get any hint whether foaf:Organization or foo:Organization will be the best way to expose your data. I think, we discussed this issue already sometime ago. A conclusion (at least for me) was that it is quite difficult to achieve such a ranking quite objective over a very broad range of ontologies that are available. It depends often on the complexity of the knowledge representation (level of detail) a developer likes to achieve. This is the advantage of the Semantic Web. There wouldn't never be an ontology for a specific domain that rules all use case in it well. 2. The selection of ontologies listed is, to say the best, often biased or partly a random choice. I do not know any repository that - has a broad coverage, - includes the top 25 linked data ontologies and I think, people are looking for an ontology that fit their purpose, i.e., popularity is good, however, it is in that case only a secondary metric*. A developer is primarily looking for an appropriate ontology. Not till then he/she can investigate further efforts into a comparison of available ones, if there are more than one appropriate ontology available. - lists more non-toy ontologies than abandoned PhD project prototypes. I don't want to take a concrete position here, however, every ontology development has somewhere its starting point and is there usually not so popular. Nevertheless, the ontology design can be a good one, too. For that reason, why should be abandon these approach and brand them as evil? I think, we should really investigate more power in enhancements of, e.g., Schemapedia. This approach seems to be a quite good one (at least from my personal experience). On the other side, something like ontology marketing/advertisement plays another important role. There are often quite good jewels out there that are badly discoverable. Cheers, Bob *) I guess, the biology community wouldn't be quite satisfied when looking at the proposed ontology charts, or? -- Michael Uschold, PhD Senior Ontology Consultant, Semantic Arts LinkedIn: http://tr.im/limfu Skype, Twitter: UscholdM
Re: data schema / vocabulary / ontology / repositories
Dieter, Thank you for raising this issue. I discovered the same problem a couple years ago, lots of data, no ontologies. Christopher has a good idea that is not hard to make good progress on. In my work with linked data, in 08-09, I needed ontologies. So I wrote a simple automated ontology-extractor. I don't remember the details, but the basic idea was: 1. create an object property or datatype property for every predicate in some triple 2. track all the individuals that are used in the subject or object of the triples, this is a starting point for domains and ranges 3. when individuals are used that are known already (e..g a person in WIkipedia), classes can be extracted, and this can further information on domains and ranges. etc. I'm sure others have done this kind of thing, and are much more sophisticated about it. I did it on a dataset to dataset basis and did not try to use it on multiple datasets, but it is quite doable. Michael On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Christopher Gutteridge c...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote: That gives me quite an interesting idea.. you could do some studies with queries to find what predicates were used to link common classes, e.g. link people to documents, to places, to other people... Kingsley Idehen wrote: On 3/13/11 12:15 PM, Dieter Fensel wrote: Dear all, for a number of projects I was searching for vocabularies/Ontologies to describe linked data. Could you please recommend me places where to look for them? I failed to find a convenient entrance point for such kind of information. I only found some scattered information here and there? Thanks, Dieter Dieter, Do you mean: I would a place where I can search for vocabularies and assess their usage across LOD datasets? Goal being reuse of existing terms re. new datasets coming into the burgeoning LOD cloud? If the above is true, the you can do the following: 1. Goto http://lod.openlinksw.com -- the live 15 Billion+ triples LOD Cloud Cache we maintain 2. Enter a text pattern (with Class, Property, or Vocabulary discovery in mind) 3. On receipt of the initial results page, use the Links in the Navigation section to filter by Type or other Attributes (so you are looking for Entities of type: Ontology or Class or Property 4. Once you find one of the Entity Types above, click on the describe link 5. At this point navigation should be obvious i.e. you can use isDefinedby to find the Ontology associated with Classes and Properties or use the inverse relations to find the Class and Properties defined by an Ontology. Hope this helps. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen -- Christopher Gutteridge -- http://id.ecs.soton.ac.uk/person/1248 You should read the ECS Web Team blog: http://blogs.ecs.soton.ac.uk/webteam/ -- Michael Uschold, PhD Senior Ontology Consultant, Semantic Arts LinkedIn: http://tr.im/limfu Skype, Twitter: UscholdM
Re: overstock.com adds GoodRelations in RDFa to 900,000 item pages
These things that bug you do so with good reason. I often call it semantic infidelity. For an in depth discussion of a closely related issue see: Overloading OWL sameAshttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Community:Overloading_OWL_sameAsA summary is given below. Michael *Issue: *owl:sameAs is being used in the linked data community in a way that is inconsistent with its semantics. *Source*: Numerous, this issue has been discussed over and over on various lists. The summary so far is mainly based on a discussion that was originally about the proliferation of URIs and managing co-reference, and evolved into a discussion about owl:sameAs *per se*. - W3C Semantic Web Listhttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/: Managing Co-reference (Was: A Semantic Elephant?)http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008May/0126.htmlMay 2008 - W3C Semantic Web Listhttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/: ISBNs, owl:sameAs, etchttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/December 2009 *Related Discussions: * - [linking open data] Open DatamsgId=19328 URI aliases and owl:sameAs was: Terminology Questionhttp://simile.mit.edu/mail/ReadMsg?listName=Linking - W3C public-lod sameAs proliferation (was Visualizing LOD Linkage)http://www.mail-archive.com/public-lod@w3.org/msg00663.htmlAugust 2008 - W3C public-lod owl:sameAs links from OpenCyc to WordNethttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2009Feb/0186.htmlFebruary 2009 - W3C semantic-web-lifesci owl:sameAs and identity [was Re: blog: semantic dissonance in uniprothttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-semweb-lifesci/2009Mar/0169.html] March 2009 - [tbc-usershttp://www.mail-archive.com/topbraid-composer-us...@googlegroups.com/msg00994.htmlcounting and owl:sameAs] April 2009 - W3C public-lod how do I report bad sameAs links? (dbpedia - Cyc)http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2009Jun/0443.htmlJune 2009 - W3C public-lod sameas.orghttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2009Jun/0038.htmlJune 2009 - W3C public-lod A sameas widget for Firefoxhttp://www.mail-archive.com/public-lod@w3.org/msg02554.htmlJune 2009 - W3C public-lod owl:sameAs [recipehttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2009Jul/0306.html] July 2009 - W3C public-lod SKOS, owl:sameAs and DBpediahttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2010Mar/0215.htmlMarch 2010 *Related Modeling Issues*: - Versioning and URIshttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Community:Versioning_and_URIs - Proliferation of URIs, Managing Coreferencehttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Community:Proliferation_of_URIs%2C_Managing_Coreference *Examples:* - relating a foaf:Person instance to the person's home page. - relating a geographical region with a political entity. For example, the physical area that a city occupies with the city itself. - relating the DBpedia resource referring to a place with to a GeoNames resource corresponding to that same place *Conclusions:* There is a lot of confusion about how owl:sameAs should be used in the linked open data community. It is being used in ways that are semantically incorrect and can give incorrect inferences. A number of points and suggestions came up. 1. There is frequent tendency to use sameAs to link resources that provide information about something to resources that represent the thing. E.g. relating a resource denoting a book to a resource that is the Amazon page for the book. 2. There is a tradeoff between formal accuracy on the one hand and pragmatic usefulness on the other hand. It often arises that treating things as the same has the desired behavior. Rather than being harmful, the vagueness can be an advantage. 3. It was proposed that a weaker similarity relationship be created to be used instead of sameAs when there is not true identity between the two resources. Some argued that there already are alternatives, e.g. skos:related and rdfs:seeAlso 4. Arguments were given pro and con, as to whether the new relationship should have a formal semantics. One proposal creates a mechanism that removes it from the logic entirely See: Managing URI Synonymity to Enable Consistent Reference on the Semantic Webhttp://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/15614/1/camera-ready.pdf. If the formal semantics is important, should the similarity relation 1. be a relation in the logical vocabulary of OWL, as sameAs is? -or- 2. be just a relation in an ontology? 5. Having too many ways to specify similarity might be confusing and hinder uptake of the technology. 6. A suggestion was made to have owl:sameAs links made in separate files so that they can easily be excluded. 7. A suggestion was made that there be specific guidelines and practices between owners of data in how they reach agreement on what should be linked. See: Bernard Vatant suggested some good practice of mutual
Re: overstock.com adds GoodRelations in RDFa to 900,000 item pages
Michael, I had a look at some of the examples. Noteworthy is the apparent lack of any product ontology. Martin's example example is for a camera with housing. An obvious way to model this is as a bundle with two things: one of type Video Camera and one off type UnderWaterHousing. There is nothing of this sort. Rather, this and perhaps all 900,000 items are of type: Product. In other words, there is no semantics at all for the products, no types, no features, no constraints, nothing. Have I missed something? If this is true, the question is why. Possibilities include: - *Expedience**: * It is conceptually trivial to convert the catalog to RDFa this way. - *First things first*: it was just a first step, more semantics is on the way... - *Lack of perceived value: *Does it cost too much for what value there may be? I wonder what the value is for this first step. I wonder whether there are plans for adding semantics to the products themselves. Any thoughts? Michael On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 5:39 AM, Martin Hepp martin.h...@ebusiness-unibw.org wrote: Dear all: I am happy to announce that overstock.com, one of the major US online retailers, has just added GoodRelations rich meta-data in RDFa to ALL ca. 900,000 item pages. Example: http://www.overstock.com/Electronics/Bell-and-Howell-DV550UW-12MP-Digital-Video-Camera-with-Underwater-Housing/4450313/product.html Sitemap: http://www.overstock.com/googlemap.xml There is still a minor bug in the markup (regarding the position of the rdf:type gr:UnitPriceSpecification statement), but I will notify them immediately; the bug will also not break typical GoodRelations queries. Best wishes Martin martin hepp e-business web science research group universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen e-mail: h...@ebusiness-unibw.org phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) skype: mfhepp twitter: mfhepp Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data! = * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/ * Quickstart Guide for Developers: http://bit.ly/quickstart4gr * Vocabulary Reference: http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1 * Developer's Wiki: http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations * Examples: http://bit.ly/cookbook4gr * Presentations: http://bit.ly/grtalks * Videos: http://bit.ly/grvideos -- Michael Uschold, PhD LinkedIn: http://tr.im/limfu Skype: UscholdM
Re: overstock.com adds GoodRelations in RDFa to 900,000 item pages
.
?product gr:hasEAN_UCC-13 ?ean.
OPTIONAL {?product gr:hasMakeAndModel ?model2}
FILTER (?ean!= ?model != ?model2)
}
Then, you can trigger the default GoodRelations axioms for adding model
feature to products:
# Products inherit all product features from their product models unless
they are defined for the products individually
CONSTRUCT {?product ?property ?valueModel.}
WHERE
{
{
{?product a gr:ActualProductOrServiceInstance.}
UNION
{?product a gr:ProductOrServicesSomeInstancesPlaceholder.}
}
?model a gr:ProductOrServiceModel.
?product gr:hasMakeAndModel ?model.
?model ?property ?valueModel.
{
{?property rdfs:subPropertyOf gr:qualitativeProductOrServiceProperty.}
UNION
{?property rdfs:subPropertyOf gr:quantitativeProductOrServiceProperty.}
UNION
{?property rdfs:subPropertyOf gr:datatypeProductOrServiceProperty.}
}
OPTIONAL {?product ?property ?valueProduct.}
FILTER (!bound(?valueProduct))
}
And SCHWUPP! ;-) you have very rich information about every single product
from initially shallow shop data.
Martin
PS: The GoodRelations proprietary axioms are at
http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelationsOptionalAxiomsAndLinks
On 06.10.2010, at 19:15, Michael F Uschold wrote:
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 5:39 AM, Martin Hepp
martin.h...@ebusiness-unibw.org wrote:
Dear all:
I am happy to announce that overstock.com, one of the major US online
retailers, has just added GoodRelations rich meta-data in RDFa to ALL ca.
900,000 item pages.
Example:
http://www.overstock.com/Electronics/Bell-and-Howell-DV550UW-12MP-Digital-Video-Camera-with-Underwater-Housing/4450313/product.html
Sitemap:
http://www.overstock.com/googlemap.xml
There is still a minor bug in the markup (regarding the position of the
rdf:type gr:UnitPriceSpecification statement), but I will notify them
immediately; the bug will also not break typical GoodRelations queries.
Best wishes
Martin
martin hepp
e-business web science research group
universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
e-mail: h...@ebusiness-unibw.org
phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217
fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620
www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
skype: mfhepp
twitter: mfhepp
Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
=
* Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
* Quickstart Guide for Developers: http://bit.ly/quickstart4gr
* Vocabulary Reference: http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1
* Developer's Wiki: http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations
* Examples: http://bit.ly/cookbook4gr
* Presentations: http://bit.ly/grtalks
* Videos: http://bit.ly/grvideos
--
Michael Uschold, PhD
LinkedIn: http://tr.im/limfu
Skype: UscholdM
--
Michael Uschold, PhD
LinkedIn: http://tr.im/limfu
Skype: UscholdM
Re: Organization ontology
All, I personally am not aware of what the latest status of the Enterprise Ontology is. I would not assume that Last modified: Monday, 31 May 2010 means anything significant happened recently. I originally encoded the Enterprise Ontology into Ontolingua syntax, and there might have been a Ontolingua to DAML converter that someone ran on the KSL library of ontologies, and these might have been converted into OWL. Deborah McGuinness may know about this, having been at KSL for when the DAML and OWL were created. For what it is worth, I regularly get inquiries about the Enterprise Ontology, maybe a few a year, so it seems to still be getting some active use, at least from the point of view of its core concepts, if not a formal version. Having said that, the Enterprise ontology is not very large, and it would be a modest effort to create an OWL version of it from scratch - based on the paper. I'll be happy do to it, if there are some resources available. A blast from the past! Michael On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 4:10 AM, Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org wrote: On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: Peristeras, Vassilios wrote: Hello all, I have the feeling that we are (at least partly) reinventing the wheel here. There have been several initiatives drafting generic models and representations for organizations. Just two examples below [1][2] which go back to 90ies. More generally, an in-depth look at design and data patterns literature could also help a lot. I have the feeling that others before this group have defined concepts like organization, legal entity etc... We could re-use their conceptual (or data or formal) models, instead of starting the discussion from scratch. Best regards, Vassilios [1] http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/project/enterprise/enterprise/ontology.html [2] http://www.eil.utoronto.ca/enterprise-modelling/tove/ Both of your links point to PDFs or Postscript docs. Are there any actual ontology doc URLs? The enterprise ontology page is HTML and describes availability as The formal Ontolingua encoding of the Enterprise Ontology is held in the Library of Ontologies maintained by Stanford University's Knowledge Systems Lab (KSL). http://www-ksl-svc.stanford.edu:5915/FRAME-EDITOR/UID-15908sid=ANONYMOUSuser-id=ALIEN Last modified: Monday, 31 May 2010 sounds fresher than I expected. There's LISP here: http://www-ksl-svc.stanford.edu:5915/FRAME-EDITOR/UID-15901sid=ANONYMOUSuser-id=ALIEN#ENTERPRISE-ONTOLOGY I guess there must be an OWL conversion tool around somewhere. I've copied Mike Uschold who may have more to say on this... cheers, Dan -- Michael Uschold, PhD LinkedIn: http://tr.im/limfu Skype: UscholdM
Semantic Elephants: Versioning, URIs, UniqueIds, owl:sameAs, Managing Coreference
All, I analyzed some past threads and teased out and summarized three distinct modeling issues. 1. Overloading OWL sameAshttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Community:Overloading_OWL_sameAs: sameAs is being used in the linked data community in a way that is inconsistent with its semantics 2. Proliferation of URIs, Managing Coreferencehttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Community:Proliferation_of_URIs%2C_Managing_Coreference: How to avoid or manage two negative consequences to the current proliferation of new URIs being minted for the same things. Specifically: 1. it is hard to find when two things should be the same 2. even if you can find the links, prolific use of owl:sameAs will create computational problems. 3. Versioning and URIshttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Community:Versioning_and_URIs: When and whether to make new URIs for different versions of things. I added them to the Catalog of Modeling Issueshttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Community:Mainin the Ontology Design Pattern Wiki http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki. Click on the links for more details. What is the Catalog of Modeling Issues?http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2010Apr/0214.htmlhttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2010Apr/0214.html Below is a bit of background on the history of this discussion. Michael PS The individuals in the CC: of this email were directly involved in the original discussions. *Background:* In May 2008, I kicked off a discussion with the subject A Semantic Elephant describing the unnecessary and costly proliferation of URIs and owl:sameAs links. This discussion evolved to be mostly about managing co-reference. Intitially private, this discussion was moved to the W3C Semantic Web Discussion Listhttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/at Tim Berners-Lee's request. See: Managing Co-reference (Was: A Semantic Elephant?)http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008May/0081.html. The original discussion also evolved into a discussion about owl:sameAs per se, which has been a recurring topic on various lists over the years. Aldo Gangemi provided a concise summary on May 16, 2008http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008May/0126.html. In October 2008, I started a closely related discussion focused more on challenges with Versioning and URIs. It was under the subject: URIs and Unique IDshttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008Oct/0192.html. From all this, I teased out the three distinct but closely related modeling isssues listed above. For each I created a detailed summary of the issues and topics that were discussed Michael
Catalog of Ontology Modeling Issues
* * Dear Ontology Engineers*, *Please forward this message to any other list that discusses ontology modeling issues. *WHAT: *We invite your participation in collecting and sharing ontology modeling issues http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Community:Main and solutions on the Ontology Design Pattern Wikihttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki. (ODP Wiki) * WHY: *There is a ton of content about ontology modeling issues in discussion list archives, BUT: 1. the same issues get discussed over and over on different lists; 2. the information you want is hard to find; 3. if you do find a relevant thread, 1. the content is raw and hard to digest; 2. the summary you want is hard to find, even it is there. 4. there is no agreed place to go to find out about modeling issues; 5. it is often easier just to ask the question again, and the cycle continues. We have created the * ontology modeling issueshttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Community:Main * section in the ODP Wiki http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki to address these problems. *HOW: *We envision the following steps in the evolution of a modeling issue: 1. Lively discussion happens on some mailing list. 2. Post a summary to the list of the key points raised, including the pros and cons of proposed solutions. 3. Post a modeling issue on the ODP Wiki (based on that summary). 4. Post a note to any relevant discussion lists inviting them to contribute to the Wiki. 5. Discuss and refine the issue further in the ODP Wiki 6. Post major updates back to relevant discussion lists. OR, start with step 3, and post the modeling issue directly on the ODP Wiki. * **To Contribute:* 1. Visit *Ontology Design Patterns Wiki*http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/ 2. Click the *How to register*http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Odp:Register link at lower left of the page; follow instructions to get a login name and password. 3. Visit the **http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Odp:WhatIsAnExemplaryOntology *Ontology Modeling Issueshttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Community:Main * page for further information,examples and instructions. * Examples: *(from discussion lists) 1. Proliferation of URIs, Managing Coreferencehttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Community:Proliferation_of_URIs%2C_Managing_Coreference 2. Overloading owl sameAshttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Community:GI_Overloading_owl_sameAs 3. Versioning and URIshttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Community:Versioning_and_URIs 4. Representing Specieshttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Community:epresenting_Species 5. Using SKOS Concepthttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Community:Using_SKOS_Concept 6. Resource multiple attributionhttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Community:Resource_multiple_attribution The above issues were ones that I found by pouring over all the threads in the linking open data list from December 2009, plus some that I was directly involved from 2008. There are many others to be found from many other lists. This work was originally supported by the NeOn project.http://www.neon-project.org/ Thanks very much, Michael ==
Re: attaching multiple licenses
All, I carefully examined this Dec 2009 thread on how to attach multiple licenses for a resource in one rdf document. Below is a concise summary. For posterity, a more detailed description and summaryhttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Community:Resource_multiple_attributionhas been added to the Catalog of Modeling Issues http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Community:Mainin the Ontology Design Pattern Wiki http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki (see below for additional information). Note that the thread was about a particular example. I generalized it into a modeling issue that could arise in different contexts and called it resource multiple attribution. *Resource multiple attributionhttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Community:Resource_multiple_attribution * *Issue*: How to attribute a single resource with two values of the same property in one document *Example: *publishing multiple licenses along with one rdf document. *Source*: The thread: attaching multiple licenseshttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2009Dec/0046.html( Markmail http://markmail.org/thread/xu4hywhgexdmrzje) in the W3C Linked Open Data Discussion List. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/ *Conclusions:* 1. One way is to use RDF reification, but this has some issues. 2. OWL 2 has Axiom Annotations designed to do this. 3. Caution: approaches often won't work unless the community adopts conventions and follows them. 4. Principles: 1. two documents about the same resource should serve the same data 2. data should not be replicated all over the place Feel free to add to the discussion in the wiki for this or any other modeling issue. *To Contribute:* 1. Visit *Ontology Design Patterns Wiki*http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/ 2. Click the *How to register*http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Odp:Register link at lower left of the page; follow instructions to get a login name and password. 3. Visit the *Ontology Modeling Issueshttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Community:Main * page for further information, examples and instructions Michael == More about the Catalog of Modeling Issueshttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Community:Main : *WHY: *There is a ton of content about ontology modeling issues in discussion list archives, BUT: 1. the same issues get discussed over and over on different lists; 2. the information you want is hard to find; 3. if you do find a relevant thread, 1. the content is raw and hard to digest; 2. the summary you want is hard to find, even it is there. 4. there is no agreed place to go to find out about modeling issues; 5. it is often easier just to ask the question again, and the cycle continues. We have created the * ontology modeling issueshttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Community:Main * section in the ODP Wiki http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki to address these problems. *HOW: *We envision the following steps in the evolution of a modeling issue: 1. Lively discussion happens on some mailing list. 2. Post a summary to the list of the key points raised, including the pros and cons of proposed solutions. 3. Post a modeling issue on the ODP Wiki (based on that summary). 4. Post a note to any relevant discussion lists inviting them to contribute to the Wiki. 5. Discuss and refine the issue further in the ODP Wiki 6. Post major updates back to relevant discussion lists. OR, start with step 3, and post the modeling issue directly on the ODP Wiki. *Examples: *(from discussion lists) 1. Proliferation of URIs, Managing Coreferencehttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Community:Proliferation_of_URIs%2C_Managing_Coreference 2. Overloading owl sameAshttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Community:GI_Overloading_owl_sameAs 3. Versioning and URIshttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Community:Versioning_and_URIs 4. Representing Specieshttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Community:epresenting_Species 5. Using SKOS Concepthttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Community:Using_SKOS_Concept 6. Resource multiple attributionhttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Community:Resource_multiple_attribution
How to Reply To messages from an archive?
Suppose I wanted to reply to a message from the archive, e.g.: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2009Dec/0145.html If I did not get that email, how can I do this? As workaround, I suppose I can copy and paste the message and make it look like a reply, and if I get the subject right it may go into the right thread. Thanks Michael
Re: KIT releases 14 billion triples to the Linked Open Data cloud
Brilliant! Someone has too much time on their hands. Though it is better than becoming a terrorist and more useful than playing solitaire or Farmville :-)) Michael
Re: Request for Good Ontologies
Adrian, This is a question on the FAQ I just created. We are not limited to OWL ontologies. http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Odp:Exemplary_ontology_FAQ - Q: *Can I enter ontologies that are not in OWL?* - A: Yes, enter the URI for your ontology in the Otology URI field. Please ensure that others can easily find out what language is being used. Often this is evident from the URI (e.g. if it ends in .owl or .rdfs). http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Odp:Exemplary_ontology_FAQMichael On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 7:03 AM, Adrian Walker adriandwal...@gmail.comwrote: Hi Mike, For some folks, *Ontology *means *OWL ontology*. For others, we have: *What makes written knowledge an ontology is that the language has a grammar and an interpretation of the grammatical constructs that is suitable for automated reasoning. If most of the desired reasoning depends on your interpretations of constructs you introduced, that can't happen unless you build the engine. *-- Edward J. Barkmeyer Under Ed's meaning, the following would presumably qualify as part of a simple ontology [1,2] some-relationship1 is a specialization of some-relationship2 that-relationship2 is a specialization of some-relationship3 that-relationship1 is a specialization of that-relationship3 some-person is related through some-relationship to some-other-person that-relationship is a specialization of some-higher-relationship --- that-person is related through that-higher-relationship to that-other-person So, my question is, are you interested suchlike for your collection? Cheers, -- Adrian [1] www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/DataModelling1.agent [2] Internet Business Logic A Wiki and SOA Endpoint for Executable Open Vocabulary English over SQL and RDF Online at www.reengineeringllc.comShared use is free, and there are no advertisements Adrian Walker Reengineering On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:19 PM, Michael F Uschold usch...@gmail.comwrote: *Dear* *LOD Afficianods:* * * This message is about an effort you may wish to contribute to, or at least you may be interested in knowing about it. * * *WHAT: **T*he NeOn project http://www.neon-project.org/ is supporting an effort to collect high quality ontologies. I invite you to submit one or more exemplary ontologieshttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Odp:WhatIsAnExemplaryOntology to a growing catalog in the Ontology Design Patterns Wikihttp://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org. Identify one or more ontologies that: - you have significant knowledge or experience with, - you regard as an excellent example of a high quality ontology See: What is an Exemplary Ontologyhttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Odp:WhatIsAnExemplaryOntology for ideas about this; edit them if you wish. Can you or any of your colleagues think of exemplary ontologies to add to the catalog? *WHY: to make it easy for people to find good ontologies to draw inspiration from and to emulate.* * If you don't have much time, I will make it easier by talking you through it on the phone. I'm UscholdM on Skype.* * * *HOW: Quick Instructions:* 1. Visit *Ontology Design Patterns Wiki*http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/ (http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/) 2. Click the *How to register*http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Odp:Register link at lower left of the page; follow instructions to get a login name and password. ---Or paste: http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Odp:Register into your browser 3. See: *What is an Exemplary Ontology*http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Odp:WhatIsAnExemplaryOntology link for some criteria ---Or paste: h ttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Odp:WhatIsAnExemplaryOntologyhttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Odp:WhatIsAnExemplaryOntology into your browser 4. Visit *Exemplary Ontology Catalogue*http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Ontology:Main page to make sure the ontology is not already there. ---Or paste: http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Ontology:Main into your browser 5. Click the *Su**bmit a new Exemplary Ontology* button. 6. Fill out a form describing various aspects of the exemplary ontology. Key fields are: 1. *Name *of ontology 2. *Description (Short)* 3. *Purpose *of the ontology 4. *Justification *(why you think this is an exemplary ontology) 5. *URI *of where to find the ontology 6. *References *One or more references to learn more. Submissions should normally be made by champions of the ontology rather than by the developers. This avoids perceived conflict of interest / self-promotion. Thanks very much, Michael ==
Request for Good Ontologies
*Dear* *LOD Afficianods:* * * This message is about an effort you may wish to contribute to, or at least you may be interested in knowing about it. * * *WHAT: **T*he NeOn project http://www.neon-project.org/ is supporting an effort to collect high quality ontologies. I invite you to submit one or more exemplary ontologieshttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Odp:WhatIsAnExemplaryOntology to a growing catalog in the Ontology Design Patterns Wikihttp://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org. Identify one or more ontologies that: - you have significant knowledge or experience with, - you regard as an excellent example of a high quality ontology See: What is an Exemplary Ontologyhttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Odp:WhatIsAnExemplaryOntology for ideas about this; edit them if you wish. Can you or any of your colleagues think of exemplary ontologies to add to the catalog? *WHY: to make it easy for people to find good ontologies to draw inspiration from and to emulate.* * If you don't have much time, I will make it easier by talking you through it on the phone. I'm UscholdM on Skype.* * * *HOW: Quick Instructions:* 1. Visit *Ontology Design Patterns Wiki*http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/ (http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/) 2. Click the *How to register*http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Odp:Register link at lower left of the page; follow instructions to get a login name and password. ---Or paste: http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Odp:Register into your browser 3. See: *What is an Exemplary Ontology*http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Odp:WhatIsAnExemplaryOntology link for some criteria ---Or paste: h ttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Odp:WhatIsAnExemplaryOntologyhttp://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Odp:WhatIsAnExemplaryOntology into your browser 4. Visit *Exemplary Ontology Catalogue*http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Ontology:Main page to make sure the ontology is not already there. ---Or paste: http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Ontology:Main into your browser 5. Click the *Su**bmit a new Exemplary Ontology* button. 6. Fill out a form describing various aspects of the exemplary ontology. Key fields are: 1. *Name *of ontology 2. *Description (Short)* 3. *Purpose *of the ontology 4. *Justification *(why you think this is an exemplary ontology) 5. *URI *of where to find the ontology 6. *References *One or more references to learn more. Submissions should normally be made by champions of the ontology rather than by the developers. This avoids perceived conflict of interest / self-promotion. Thanks very much, Michael ==
