[SMW-devel] SMW integration in other tools

[Krabina Bernhard]

Hi,

as great as SMW is by itself, I'd like to hear your thoughts or experiences 
regarding integration in or collaboration with other tools.

In some cases, SMW can be a real competitor to other "bigger" solutions, in 
other it might not have a chance to compete. Many other tools offer wikis as 
well and we know, how poor they perform compared to SMW. So the question is, 
how could an integration of SMW be done? With what other tools? What would be 
feasible and what not?

Let me share my first thoughts:

Microsoft Sharepoint

* focus: portal/document management
* SMW replacing the internal wiki

Liferay
---
* focus: enterprise portal
* SMW replacing the internal wiki
* 
http://www.liferay.com/de/documentation/liferay-portal/6.2/user-guide/-/ai/working-together-with-the-wiki-liferay-portal-6-2-user-guide-08-en
* http://www.liferay.com/de/community/wiki/-/wiki/Main/Wiki+Portlet
* the wiki "is completely integrated with Liferay’s user management, tagging, 
and security features."
* Java-based

Alfresco

* focus: document management
* SMW replacing the internal wiki
* Java-based
* PHP Api

Drupal
---
* focus: web cms
* usecase unclear...
* PHP based!

Zimbra/Zarafa/OpenText..
---
* focus: groupware
* SMW adding wiki to the groupware, importing/exporting content (LDAP, vcard, 
ical)...

others?

-Bernhard

--
November Webinars for C, C++, Fortran Developers
Accelerate application performance with scalable programming models. Explore
techniques for threading, error checking, porting, and tuning. Get the most 
from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60136231&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel

Re: [SMW-devel] OWA problem?

[Nischay Nahata]

MW is a CMS and SMW is a SCMS. Simple :)


On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Yaron Koren  wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> MediaWiki is a CMS, and so is MW + SMW - first and foremost, it's a way to
> manage content.
>
> Also, please keep the discussion civil - even if you think someone's being
> uncivil to you, the best approach is to de-escalate and focus on the issues.
>
> -Yaron
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:36 PM, John McClure wrote:
>
>> Markus, your stunning words below may be confusing to more than me. MW
>> is a CMS, SMW is /not/. Discussing 'surface syntax' of MW's wikitext, is
>> so irrelevant to SMW's semantic annotations of that wikitext, that I
>> don't know where to even begin...
>>
>> If you'd rather not discuss the options I raised, that's perfectly fine!
>> But throwing a brick through a window, is not.
>> /jmc
>>
>> On 11/10/2013 11:42 PM, Markus Krötzsch wrote:
>> > Hi John,
>> >
>> > The main point of my previous email was to explain that SMW does not
>> > implement the CWA (or OWA). The terms CWA and OWA are used to
>> > characterise knowledge representation formalisms. SMW, in contrast, is
>> > a content management software. It has neither a formal syntax nor a
>> > formal semantics. To say that "SMW implements the CWA" is similar to
>> > saying that "SMW is green".
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Markus
>> >
>> >
>> > On 10/11/13 17:26, John McClure wrote:
>> >> Hi Markus - thank you for your explanation of OWA -- for more, see also
>> >> [1] [2].  My question is about the default for a property's type, so
>> >> let's focus prescriptively on this.
>> >>
>> >> In OWL, two classes are used to define a property: ObjectProperty and
>> >> DatatypeProperty; in RDF, just one. OWL permits us to sidestep this
>> >> issue at hand because the range is indicated by the semantics of the
>> >> relevant property class. RDF properties otoh do not force any
>> >> committment about the range.
>> >>
>> >> Because there is a single "Property" wiki-namespace, SMW essentially
>> >> implements , injecting > >> rdf:resource='owl:ObjectProperty'/> when no type annotation is
>> provided.
>> >> Of course this is not equivalent to > rdf:about='x'/>.
>> >> In RDF,  without a range means that either
>> a
>> >> resource or literal can be the target of a triple whose predicate is
>> >> Property:x.
>> >>
>> >> So I'm thinking of four options to clarify the situation - you may have
>> >> others!
>> >> 1) document the CWA that SMW implements
>> >> 2) establish two property namespaces, vis a vis OWL
>> >> 3) permit either text or page/subobject as targets
>> >> 4) refuse to create a triple similar to datatype violations
>> >>
>> >> Just a few ideas kicking around -
>> >> thanks
>> >> [1] http://www.mkbergman.com/852/
>> >> [2] http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~drummond/presentations/OWA.pdf
>> >> 
>> >>
>> >> On 11/10/2013 2:33 AM, Markus Krötzsch wrote:
>> >>> On 10/11/13 10:43, Niklas Laxström wrote:
>>  What is OWA?
>> >>>
>> >>> John refers to the "Open World Assumption". This is an informal
>> >>> concept used in knowledge representation to describe the assumption
>> >>> that statements that are not made are "unknown" rather than "false".
>> >>> This is contrasted with the "Closed World Assumption" that is common
>> >>> in databases, where we assume that unspecified information is false.
>> >>>
>> >>> For example, if the ACME company has a database that contains a table
>> >>> for employees, and this table does not contain "Bob", then one would
>> >>> assume that Bob is not an employee at ACME. In contrast, if an OWL
>> >>> ontology contains information about people (e.g., using FOAF), and the
>> >>> ontology does not contain Bob, one would not assume that Bob is not a
>> >>> person (maybe Bob just has not created a FOAF file). If we want to say
>> >>> that Bob is not a person in OWL, then we can do this directly by using
>> >>> negation; in databases, this is usually not possible and we simply
>> >>> assume that omitted information is negated.
>> >>>
>> >>> OWA is closely related to what we call "monotonicity": the more
>> >>> information we enter into a system, the more informative it becomes.
>> >>> Databases are not monotonic in this sense: if I enter that Bob is an
>> >>> employee, then I add some information (that "Bob is an employee") but
>> >>> I also remove some information (that "Bob is not an employee"). OWL is
>> >>> monotonic, but other knowledge representation languages are not.
>> >>>
>> >>> What John refers to is that SMW assumes a default type for properties
>> >>> (Page). Therefore, the input behaviour is not monotonic: if you
>> >>> specify another type later, then this will make the formerly true type
>> >>> Page false. However, this is not a "violation" of the OWA. Wikitext is
>> >>> just a surface syntax and not the internal knowledge model of SMW.
>> >>> Wikitext can never be monotonic: for example, if a page contains
>> >>> "[[someprop::somevalue]]"

Re: [SMW-devel] OWA problem?

[Yaron Koren]

Hi John,

MediaWiki is a CMS, and so is MW + SMW - first and foremost, it's a way to
manage content.

Also, please keep the discussion civil - even if you think someone's being
uncivil to you, the best approach is to de-escalate and focus on the issues.

-Yaron


On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:36 PM, John McClure wrote:

> Markus, your stunning words below may be confusing to more than me. MW
> is a CMS, SMW is /not/. Discussing 'surface syntax' of MW's wikitext, is
> so irrelevant to SMW's semantic annotations of that wikitext, that I
> don't know where to even begin...
>
> If you'd rather not discuss the options I raised, that's perfectly fine!
> But throwing a brick through a window, is not.
> /jmc
>
> On 11/10/2013 11:42 PM, Markus Krötzsch wrote:
> > Hi John,
> >
> > The main point of my previous email was to explain that SMW does not
> > implement the CWA (or OWA). The terms CWA and OWA are used to
> > characterise knowledge representation formalisms. SMW, in contrast, is
> > a content management software. It has neither a formal syntax nor a
> > formal semantics. To say that "SMW implements the CWA" is similar to
> > saying that "SMW is green".
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Markus
> >
> >
> > On 10/11/13 17:26, John McClure wrote:
> >> Hi Markus - thank you for your explanation of OWA -- for more, see also
> >> [1] [2].  My question is about the default for a property's type, so
> >> let's focus prescriptively on this.
> >>
> >> In OWL, two classes are used to define a property: ObjectProperty and
> >> DatatypeProperty; in RDF, just one. OWL permits us to sidestep this
> >> issue at hand because the range is indicated by the semantics of the
> >> relevant property class. RDF properties otoh do not force any
> >> committment about the range.
> >>
> >> Because there is a single "Property" wiki-namespace, SMW essentially
> >> implements , injecting  >> rdf:resource='owl:ObjectProperty'/> when no type annotation is provided.
> >> Of course this is not equivalent to .
> >> In RDF,  without a range means that either a
> >> resource or literal can be the target of a triple whose predicate is
> >> Property:x.
> >>
> >> So I'm thinking of four options to clarify the situation - you may have
> >> others!
> >> 1) document the CWA that SMW implements
> >> 2) establish two property namespaces, vis a vis OWL
> >> 3) permit either text or page/subobject as targets
> >> 4) refuse to create a triple similar to datatype violations
> >>
> >> Just a few ideas kicking around -
> >> thanks
> >> [1] http://www.mkbergman.com/852/
> >> [2] http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~drummond/presentations/OWA.pdf
> >> 
> >>
> >> On 11/10/2013 2:33 AM, Markus Krötzsch wrote:
> >>> On 10/11/13 10:43, Niklas Laxström wrote:
>  What is OWA?
> >>>
> >>> John refers to the "Open World Assumption". This is an informal
> >>> concept used in knowledge representation to describe the assumption
> >>> that statements that are not made are "unknown" rather than "false".
> >>> This is contrasted with the "Closed World Assumption" that is common
> >>> in databases, where we assume that unspecified information is false.
> >>>
> >>> For example, if the ACME company has a database that contains a table
> >>> for employees, and this table does not contain "Bob", then one would
> >>> assume that Bob is not an employee at ACME. In contrast, if an OWL
> >>> ontology contains information about people (e.g., using FOAF), and the
> >>> ontology does not contain Bob, one would not assume that Bob is not a
> >>> person (maybe Bob just has not created a FOAF file). If we want to say
> >>> that Bob is not a person in OWL, then we can do this directly by using
> >>> negation; in databases, this is usually not possible and we simply
> >>> assume that omitted information is negated.
> >>>
> >>> OWA is closely related to what we call "monotonicity": the more
> >>> information we enter into a system, the more informative it becomes.
> >>> Databases are not monotonic in this sense: if I enter that Bob is an
> >>> employee, then I add some information (that "Bob is an employee") but
> >>> I also remove some information (that "Bob is not an employee"). OWL is
> >>> monotonic, but other knowledge representation languages are not.
> >>>
> >>> What John refers to is that SMW assumes a default type for properties
> >>> (Page). Therefore, the input behaviour is not monotonic: if you
> >>> specify another type later, then this will make the formerly true type
> >>> Page false. However, this is not a "violation" of the OWA. Wikitext is
> >>> just a surface syntax and not the internal knowledge model of SMW.
> >>> Wikitext can never be monotonic: for example, if a page contains
> >>> "[[someprop::somevalue]]" and you add an input character "X" to obtain
> >>> "[X[someprop::somevaue]]" then SMW will no longer contain the fact.
> >>> Parser functions, templates, comments, etc. will all lead to similar
> >>> effects.
> >>>
> >>> Clearly, 

Re: [SMW-devel] OWA problem?

[John McClure]

Markus, your stunning words below may be confusing to more than me. MW 
is a CMS, SMW is /not/. Discussing 'surface syntax' of MW's wikitext, is 
so irrelevant to SMW's semantic annotations of that wikitext, that I 
don't know where to even begin...

If you'd rather not discuss the options I raised, that's perfectly fine!
But throwing a brick through a window, is not.
/jmc

On 11/10/2013 11:42 PM, Markus Krötzsch wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> The main point of my previous email was to explain that SMW does not 
> implement the CWA (or OWA). The terms CWA and OWA are used to 
> characterise knowledge representation formalisms. SMW, in contrast, is 
> a content management software. It has neither a formal syntax nor a 
> formal semantics. To say that "SMW implements the CWA" is similar to 
> saying that "SMW is green".
>
> Cheers,
>
> Markus
>
>
> On 10/11/13 17:26, John McClure wrote:
>> Hi Markus - thank you for your explanation of OWA -- for more, see also
>> [1] [2].  My question is about the default for a property's type, so
>> let's focus prescriptively on this.
>>
>> In OWL, two classes are used to define a property: ObjectProperty and
>> DatatypeProperty; in RDF, just one. OWL permits us to sidestep this
>> issue at hand because the range is indicated by the semantics of the
>> relevant property class. RDF properties otoh do not force any
>> committment about the range.
>>
>> Because there is a single "Property" wiki-namespace, SMW essentially
>> implements , injecting > rdf:resource='owl:ObjectProperty'/> when no type annotation is provided.
>> Of course this is not equivalent to .
>> In RDF,  without a range means that either a
>> resource or literal can be the target of a triple whose predicate is
>> Property:x.
>>
>> So I'm thinking of four options to clarify the situation - you may have
>> others!
>> 1) document the CWA that SMW implements
>> 2) establish two property namespaces, vis a vis OWL
>> 3) permit either text or page/subobject as targets
>> 4) refuse to create a triple similar to datatype violations
>>
>> Just a few ideas kicking around -
>> thanks
>> [1] http://www.mkbergman.com/852/
>> [2] http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~drummond/presentations/OWA.pdf
>> 
>>
>> On 11/10/2013 2:33 AM, Markus Krötzsch wrote:
>>> On 10/11/13 10:43, Niklas Laxström wrote:
 What is OWA?
>>>
>>> John refers to the "Open World Assumption". This is an informal
>>> concept used in knowledge representation to describe the assumption
>>> that statements that are not made are "unknown" rather than "false".
>>> This is contrasted with the "Closed World Assumption" that is common
>>> in databases, where we assume that unspecified information is false.
>>>
>>> For example, if the ACME company has a database that contains a table
>>> for employees, and this table does not contain "Bob", then one would
>>> assume that Bob is not an employee at ACME. In contrast, if an OWL
>>> ontology contains information about people (e.g., using FOAF), and the
>>> ontology does not contain Bob, one would not assume that Bob is not a
>>> person (maybe Bob just has not created a FOAF file). If we want to say
>>> that Bob is not a person in OWL, then we can do this directly by using
>>> negation; in databases, this is usually not possible and we simply
>>> assume that omitted information is negated.
>>>
>>> OWA is closely related to what we call "monotonicity": the more
>>> information we enter into a system, the more informative it becomes.
>>> Databases are not monotonic in this sense: if I enter that Bob is an
>>> employee, then I add some information (that "Bob is an employee") but
>>> I also remove some information (that "Bob is not an employee"). OWL is
>>> monotonic, but other knowledge representation languages are not.
>>>
>>> What John refers to is that SMW assumes a default type for properties
>>> (Page). Therefore, the input behaviour is not monotonic: if you
>>> specify another type later, then this will make the formerly true type
>>> Page false. However, this is not a "violation" of the OWA. Wikitext is
>>> just a surface syntax and not the internal knowledge model of SMW.
>>> Wikitext can never be monotonic: for example, if a page contains
>>> "[[someprop::somevalue]]" and you add an input character "X" to obtain
>>> "[X[someprop::somevaue]]" then SMW will no longer contain the fact.
>>> Parser functions, templates, comments, etc. will all lead to similar
>>> effects.
>>>
>>> Clearly, it makes no sense for a surface syntax to be monotonic in
>>> this sense: a meaningful notion of monotonicity cannot refer to the
>>> character level. However, the only other structure that wikitext has
>>> is the DOM tree of templates and parser functions. Basic SMW fact
>>> syntax and MW category syntax does not feature there at all (it is
>>> just character data). So it does not work for defining a meaningful
>>> notion of monotonicity either. The simple conclusion is that wikitext
>>> is n

[SMW-devel] MW categories vs RDF classes

[John McClure]

Hi Markus,

I also make the same careful distinction as you about MW categories vs 
RDF classes. I don't use categories for concrete RDF classes, as I 
prefix concrete classes with "Type:" now storing them in the Main: 
namespace (example: Type:Community).  I use the word 'concrete' here to 
indicate classes whose names are /nouns/.

Those classes whose names are adjectives ('Deprecated' for instance, 
short for 'DeprecatedThings'), I have a different tactic: These are 
categories though I prefix them with a "Tag:" prefix,  eg 
Tag:Deprecated, taking advantage of a "Tag" alias for the Category 
namespace, so as to use SMW's present mechanisms without alteration. 
This tactic may evolve, as my general strategy is to treat the Category 
namespace as an unrestricted repository for users' folksononmy entries, 
treating Type: and Tag: entries in a more controllable manner.

You may recall I have modified SMW to respect the MW setting for 
initial-capitalization of pagenames in the Property namespace, to handle 
xml-namespace prefixes correctly, eg "skos:prefLabel" not 
"Skos:prefLabel". I'm interested also in distinguishing between common 
nouns and proper nouns too. Recall I asked you about SMW's current 
handling of the (old) Type namespace. I'd switch these class entries 
(from the Main: namespace and the alias Tag: namespace) to controlled 
namespaces when SMW can apply similar but optional 'partative' 
processing within other namespaces as it does today within the Category 
namespace.

Thanks/jmc

PS "Queries in SMW also interpret the category hierarchy in the same way 
as OWL, but this can be switched off if it does not work for you."
How does one do this? Sounds like a good lead towards locating current 
'partative' processing methods.


On 11/10/2013 11:33 PM, Markus Krötzsch wrote:
> On 10/11/13 13:06, Jonathan Lang wrote:
>> On Nov 10, 2013, at 2:33 AM, Markus Krötzsch  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/11/13 10:43, Niklas Laxström wrote:
 What is OWA?
>>> John refers to the "Open World Assumption". This is an informal concept
>>> used in knowledge representation to describe the assumption that
>>> statements that are not made are "unknown" rather than "false". This is
>>> contrasted with the "Closed World Assumption" that is common in
>>> databases, where we assume that unspecified information is false.
>> -snip-
>>
>> Thank you for that; it was incredibly informative.  If you don’t mind, I 
>> have a followup question of my own:
>>
>>> What John refers to is that SMW assumes a default type for properties
>>> (Page). Therefore, the input behaviour is not monotonic: if you specify
>>> another type later, then this will make the formerly true type Page
>>> false. However, this is not a "violation" of the OWA. Wikitext is just a
>>> surface syntax and not the internal knowledge model of SMW. Wikitext can
>>> never be monotonic: for example, if a page contains
>>> "[[someprop::somevalue]]" and you add an input character "X" to obtain
>>> "[X[someprop::somevaue]]" then SMW will no longer contain the fact.
>>> Parser functions, templates, comments, etc. will all lead to similar
>>> effects.
>> I think I understand what you’re saying here.  What I’d like to know is 
>> whether any of this applies to the equivalency that exists (or is that past 
>> tense?  I’m a bit behind the development curve right now) between OWL 
>> classes and MW Categories?  That is, aren’t we making potentially 
>> unwarranted assumptions about the semantic significance of a Category when 
>> we assume that all Categories are classes, and vice versa?
> That depends on how you use MW classes. Instances of OWL classes are
> propagated up the hierarchy: if A instanceOf B and B subclassOf C then A
> instanceOf C). MW classes do not behave like this. If one uses MW
> classes in a way for which this behaviour is not useful, then OWL
> classes are not a good way to capture this. In this case, the OWL export
> that SMW generates is of limited utility. Queries in SMW also interpret
> the category hierarchy in the same way as OWL, but this can be switched
> off if it does not work for you. Assuming that all MW categories in all
> wikis are intended to be used like OWL classes would certainly be an
> unwarranted assumption. SMW does not make that assumption, but if you
> install SMW on a wiki with its default configuration, then you choose
> this as your preferred way of treating categories.
>
> Note that the previous paragraph speaks mainly about how a system
> behaves and whether this is desired or not. This is the only level on
> which we can discuss the relationship of MW and OWL -- considering them
> as pieces of technology that do something for the user. In particular,
> MW does not have a specified semantics (or even a formal syntax!), since
> it is not a format meant to exchange information across applications. So
> there is no right or wrong way of using MW categories, and one cannot
> say that they are generally compatible or generally inco

[SMW-devel] Parser Functions mentor needed - date parsing

[Krabina Bernhard]

Dear all,

I made a Google Code-In task proposal about
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56547 and added it to
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Google_Code-in#Code !

Now we need a mentor for this. As I am not a developer, I cannot be a (good) 
mentor for this. Is anybody interested? This task is not really SMW related and 
the task is quite easy from a developer's point of view. So anybody could 
volunteer with a knoledge about MediaWiki in general, no specific SMW know-how 
is needed.

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Google_Code-in#Become_a_Wikimedia_GCI_mentor
describes the steps how to register as a mentor in Google Melange.

Best regards,
Bernhard


--
November Webinars for C, C++, Fortran Developers
Accelerate application performance with scalable programming models. Explore
techniques for threading, error checking, porting, and tuning. Get the most 
from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60136231&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel