Dear Yves,
The paper on NKRL you mention is a quite old one. With respect now to
OntoMedia, this work is regularly mentioned at page 14 of my book, in
particular [Tuffield et al., 2006] and the site
eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12695. May be, that is not very much...
Best regards,
G.P. Zarri
Misha, Yves,
In reality, an RDF 'translation' of an (old) NKRL version has been
carried out in the framework of an (old) European project - see, e.g., a
relatively detailed description in Zarri, G.P. (2000) “A Conceptual
Model for Capturing and Reusing Knowledge in Business-Oriented Domains”,
Hi all,
Slightly on the side of the topic, I would like to draw your attention
to the ontology patterns workshop at next ISWC (see the recent call from
Aldo and [1]). That's the perfect place to discuss modeling topics like
the one discussed on this thread. The workshop includes a call for
pa
Hello!
> I was abroad these last weeks, and unable then to follow this thread with
> the necessary attention. It seems however evident to me that, when dealing
> contemporaneously with terms like "ontology" and "event", one should have at
> least a look at NKRL (Narrative Knowledge Representation
Dear All,
I was abroad these last weeks, and unable then to follow this thread
with the necessary attention. It seems however evident to me that, when
dealing contemporaneously with terms like "ontology" and "event", one
should have at least a look at NKRL (Narrative Knowledge Representation
Hello Ansgar,
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 1:19 AM, Ansgar Scherp wrote:
> It is quite interesting to see this very long thread on events. In the past
> time
> we have studied many event models (see, e.g., the list Raphael Troncy sent
> around).
> When studying them, I was very surprised that for ma
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:30 AM, Simon
Reinhardt wrote:
> I just went by what I saw missing at http://linkedevents.org/ontology/ - and
> there both the HTML and the RDF/XML documents map "only" to DC, CIDOC-CRM,
> the Event Ontology and DOLCE+DnS Ultralite.
Yes, this is true. Although we discuss
Raphaël Troncy wrote:
Some other ontologies which you might be interested in for mapping are
BIO [1] and OntoMedia ([2] is a good starting point - this group in
general might be interesting for you).
And other ontologies have been proposed in other posts such as
CIDOC-CRM. http://linkedevents
Hello!
> It is quite interesting to see this very long thread on events. In the past
> time
> we have studied many event models (see, e.g., the list Raphael Troncy sent
> around).
> When studying them, I was very surprised that for many of them no foundational
> literature was studied (philosoph
Dear all
It is quite interesting to see this very long thread on events. In the past time
we have studied many event models (see, e.g., the list Raphael Troncy sent
around).
When studying them, I was very surprised that for many of them no foundational
literature was studied (philosophy, linguis
Some other ontologies which you might be interested in for mapping are
BIO [1] and OntoMedia ([2] is a good starting point - this group in
general might be interesting for you).
And other ontologies have been proposed in other posts such as
CIDOC-CRM. http://linkedevents.org/ontology/ contains
On Jul 30, 2009, at 9:14 AM, Bernhard Haslhofer wrote:
...So my advice for the LOD context: keep it simple and try to find
another vocabulary/ontology or refine an existing one.
+1. Couldn't put it better myself :-)
Pat Hayes
IHM
we have been working with the CRM in the past so I feel like
commenting on that:
On Jul 30, 2009, at 2:53 PM, Simon Reinhardt wrote:
Richard Light wrote:
Another ontology/vocabulary which is centred around events is the
CIDOC CRM (Conceptual Reference Model). [1] It is "a formal
ontology
Ryan Shaw wrote:
Our primary interest is in events as reported in news or represented
in historical narrative, which is quite different from, e.g., a
scientific notion of an event as a well-defined process or as part of
a causal mechanism. I think there is probably room for several
different even
On Jul 30, 2009, at 2:34 PM, Richard Light wrote:
In message , Sean
Gillies writes
There's much to like about CRM -- not the least of which is the
active and helpful community -- but I've concluded that it's overly
normalized for what I'm trying to do, which is to link data about
ancie
Richard Light wrote:
Another ontology/vocabulary which is centred around events is the CIDOC
CRM (Conceptual Reference Model). [1] It is "a formal ontology intended
to facilitate the integration, mediation and interchange of
heterogeneous cultural heritage information", and comes out of the
m
rom: Simon Reinhardt
> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:36:02 +0200
> To: Linked Data community
> Cc: Linked Data community
> Subject: Re: looking for an event ontology/vocabulary
> Resent-From: Linked Data community
> Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:37:00 +
>
> Michael Haus
Michael Hausenblas wrote:
Ryan,
http://linkedevents.org/ontology/Event
and it 404s ...
Apologies, that should be fixed now.
Thanks. Sorted ;)
I'm not quite sure if it's sorted yet. When I do
curl -v -I -H "Accept: application/rdf+xml"
http://linkedevents.org/ontology/Event
I get an H
In message , Sean
Gillies writes
There's much to like about CRM -- not the least of which is the active
and helpful community -- but I've concluded that it's overly
normalized for what I'm trying to do, which is to link data about
ancient inscriptions to data about places of the classical wo
On Jul 30, 2009, at 8:17 AM, Ryan Shaw wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Richard
Light wrote:
Another ontology/vocabulary which is centred around events is the
CIDOC CRM
(Conceptual Reference Model). [1] It is "a formal ontology
intended to
facilitate the integration, mediation and
In message
, Ryan Shaw
writes
We discuss the CIDOC CRM extensively in our tech report, which I will
post a link to here as soon as it is available. I personally am of the
opinion that it is overengineered for Linked Data purposes. But I am
willing to be convinced otherwise. In any case, though
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Michael
Hausenblas wrote:
> Since this works now, I've got a question: what is the versioning policy
> you're using? You obviously have a time-labelled namespace
> (http://linkedevents.org/ontology/2009-07-28/) and indeed this resolves to
> this one:
>
> curl -H "
senblas
> Cc: Raphaël Troncy , Lynda Hardman
> , Linked Data community
> Subject: Re: looking for an event ontology/vocabulary
>
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Michael
> Hausenblas wrote:
>
>> So, I'm trying to check how linked dataish it is. First class I pick:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Richard
Light wrote:
> Another ontology/vocabulary which is centred around events is the CIDOC CRM
> (Conceptual Reference Model). [1] It is "a formal ontology intended to
> facilitate the integration, mediation and interchange of heterogeneous
> cultural heritag
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Michael
Hausenblas wrote:
> So, I'm trying to check how linked dataish it is. First class I pick:
>
> http://linkedevents.org/ontology/Event
>
> and it 404s ...
>
> Maybe fix that and then we continue?
Apologies, that should be fixed now.
In message <82593ac00907291409t57507d29u54a5d37a1906...@mail.gmail.com>,
Yves Raimond writes
The disjoint statement between agent and factor defines factors as
something that doesn't have an active role in the event.
But are necessary for the event to take place? Or play a significant role in
; To: Linked Data community
> Cc: Raphaël Troncy , Lynda Hardman
>
> Subject: Re: looking for an event ontology/vocabulary
> Resent-From: Linked Data community
> Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 05:39:34 +
>
> My colleagues Raphaël Troncy and Lynda Hardman and I have recently
My colleagues Raphaël Troncy and Lynda Hardman and I have recently
published an event ontology which is heavily based on Yves' event
ontology but which tries to address some of the clarity issues that
Pat has raised. You can find it at
http://linkedevents.org/ontology/
There is an accompanying te
On Jul 29, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Yves Raimond wrote:
The disjoint statement between agent and factor defines factors as
something that doesn't have an active role in the event.
But are necessary for the event to take place? Or play a
significant role in
the event, so that if they were not prese
>> The disjoint statement between agent and factor defines factors as
>> something that doesn't have an active role in the event.
>
> But are necessary for the event to take place? Or play a significant role in
> the event, so that if they were not present, the event would have been
> different? Or
>> And while the Event ontology doesn't state event:Factor and
>> geo:SpatialThing to be distinct (maybe they didn't want to make such
>> statements about other people's terms - with OWL 2 they could do this for
>> event:factor and event:place now though) I think it's pretty obvious that
>> you're
2009/7/29 Pat Hayes :
> Indeed. However, it suffers from one glaring defect, which may simply be a
> problem of documentation: i does not explain its terms.
Documentation is a pretty common problem...
In particular, it
> refers to a 'factor' of an event, without anywhere saying anything, either
>>> Indeed. However, it suffers from one glaring defect, which may simply be a
>>> problem of documentation: i does not explain its terms. In particular, it
>>> refers to a 'factor' of an event, without anywhere saying anything, either
>>> in the axioms or in the documentation, to explain what this
>> Wow. No need to shout
>
> Sorry. You pressed one my buttons. I am so fed up reading 'documentation'
> along the lines of "A frongleBlitz" is any blitz with a frongle". It is just
> irresponsible to write such stuff when putting forward something that is
> claimed to be an ontology, especiall
On 29 Jul 2009, at 17:54, Yves Raimond wrote:
Also, we are perfectly open for improvements, so if you have any
suggestions for improvement or better description of terms, feel free.
There is even an open SVN (motools project on Sourceforge, in the
event subdirectory), where you can directly com
On Jul 29, 2009, at 12:38 PM, Simon Reinhardt wrote:
Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Yves
Raimond wrote:
and so we didn't got the incentive to
write a better one. Among those examples, you have:
* A score in a musical performance
* A musical instrument in a musical
On Jul 29, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Yves Raimond wrote:
Hello!
Indeed. However, it suffers from one glaring defect, which may
simply be a
problem of documentation: i does not explain its terms. In
particular, it
refers to a 'factor' of an event, without anywhere saying anything,
either
in the
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Simon
Reinhardt wrote:
> Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Yves Raimond
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> and so we didn't got the incentive to
>>> write a better one. Among those examples, you have:
>>>
>>> * A score in a musical performance
>>> * A m
Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Yves Raimond wrote:
and so we didn't got the incentive to
write a better one. Among those examples, you have:
* A score in a musical performance
* A musical instrument in a musical performance
* A piece of text in a reading
* A microphon
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Yves Raimond wrote:
> Hello!
>
>> Indeed. However, it suffers from one glaring defect, which may simply be a
>> problem of documentation: i does not explain its terms. In particular, it
>> refers to a 'factor' of an event, without anywhere saying anything, either
>
Hello!
> Indeed. However, it suffers from one glaring defect, which may simply be a
> problem of documentation: i does not explain its terms. In particular, it
> refers to a 'factor' of an event, without anywhere saying anything, either
> in the axioms or in the documentation, to explain what this
On Jul 29, 2009, at 4:55 AM, Yves Raimond wrote:
Hello!
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 5:28 PM, David Canos
wrote:
Hi folks
i'd like to public a lot of events for a startup project and I want
to use a
public vocabulary to make it useful.
I've found a vocabulary [1] done by Yves, is this ontolog
Hello!
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 5:28 PM, David Canos wrote:
> Hi folks
> i'd like to public a lot of events for a startup project and I want to use a
> public vocabulary to make it useful.
> I've found a vocabulary [1] done by Yves, is this ontology the best place to
> start with?
> I will extend i
thanks very much Alan for your answer.
I'm quite bad creating ontologies but I think it doesn't exists what I need
and my ignorance tell me it could be helpful to set out a simple owl
describing the event concept and its context:
Where, when, tematics, description, prices, images, videos, geolocali
You might consider BFO, which covers processes and the things that
participate in them, and the relation ontology, which has relations
such as has_participant, which relate things to the processes they
participate in.
This would have the benefit of being compatible with a growing
collection of ont
Hi folks i'd like to public a lot of events for a startup project and I want
to use a public vocabulary to make it useful.
I've found a vocabulary [1] done by Yves, is this ontology the best place to
start with?
I will extend it in near future.
[1] http://motools.sourceforge.net/event/event.html
46 matches
Mail list logo
