-----Original Message----- From: S Page [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 6:25 PM To: Harold Solbrig Cc: semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: your interesting ontology example (Re: [SMW-devel] Classes vs. Categories)
Harold Solbrig wrote: > See http://biomedgt.org/ or http://www.wiktolog.org/agrowiki/ These are interesting, the first Semantic MediaWiki I've seen using SKOS concepts to annotate categories. I couldn't find any simple concepts like "actor" or "automobile" for beginners! >>>> We're using SKOS (and DC, DCTerms, RDF, etc.) because (a) we don't want to create new semantics if we don't need to and (b) the resources that went into agrowiki were all OWL or SKOS to begin with. Agrovoc is, at the moment, a Thesaurus with an Ontology inside wanting to get out. SKOS, at the moment, is a language primarily focused on communication thesaurus-style resources, although it has ambitions for being far more once it grows up. There has been some discussion on the W3C level on how exactly SKOS and OWL align. >>>> Good idea on a beginner type entry - you wouldn't happen to have something pre-canned around as a starter? > ... > It is our hope that ontology developers will be able use these > resources (or at least the first one) to comment on and propose > changes to the ontology contents. We export these proposals in a > Protege-OWL editor through the RDF export mechanism, Do you recommend Protege-OWL for RDF exported from SMW? Does smoke come out of it when presented with garbled MediaWiki categories? >>> OWL would work only if you've got something somewhat OWL-like going in. I've got a hunch that the "smoke" analogy would be a good one were you to take the existing MediaWiki assertions and attempt to put them into a DL classifier. I think that it would be a fascinating experiment, however. Has anyone "SMW-ized" a small, relatively self-contained section of MediaWiki? I'd be interested in giving it a try. As I mentioned below, there is some transformation that needs to occur. > although we have to do a goodly amount of transformation to > accomplish this. Ideally, we would like to reach the point where we > can generate real OWL through the RDF when applicable. I think it would help if you used the SMW import vocabularies feature. E.g. you have <http://www.wiktolog.org/agrowiki/index.php?title=Property:SKOS_inScheme (inScheme)> but you don't say [[Imported from::skos:inScheme]] or have MediaWiki:Smw_import_skos, so such well-known properties get exported as SMW properties instead of ontology elements: ExportRDF has predicates like <property:SKOS_inScheme rdf:resource="&wiki;Rdfs"/> that you have to map instead of <skos:inScheme rdf:resource="&wiki;Rdfs"/> >>> Thanks! I'll take a look at it. This topic got put on the back-burner a while back and, like so many back-burner issues, never saw the light of day again. BTW, I think in agrowiki's version of Semantic MediaWiki (version 1.0-RC2), semantic searches only search in the main namespace by default, so inline queries don't return all the annotations of categories and properties unless you explicitly list those namespaces. You should consider upgrading. >>> As I said, the agrowiki site has fallen into a bit of disrepair and we need to give it a complete software + content refresh. Cheers, -- =S Page ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Semediawiki-devel mailing list Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
