![[ICO]](/icons/blank.gif){kind=icon}
![[DIR]](/icons/back.gif){kind=icon}
![[TXT]](/icons/text.gif){kind=icon}
![[ ]](/icons/unknown.gif){kind=icon}
| Name | Last modified | Size | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parent Directory | - | ||
| organizational_process_and_maturity_models.ttl | 02-Apr-2013 02:21 | 3.2K | |
| ontology_usage.ttl | 02-Apr-2013 02:21 | 1.5K | |
| ontology_requirements.ttl | 02-Apr-2013 02:21 | 2.4K | |
| ontology_characteristics_oquare.ttl | 02-Apr-2013 02:21 | 4.0K | |
| ontology_characteristics.ttl | 02-Apr-2013 02:21 | 2.6K | |
| ontology.ttl | 02-Apr-2013 02:21 | 3.4K | |
| metrics_model.ttl | 02-Apr-2013 02:21 | 1.3K | |
| lifecycle.ttl | 02-Apr-2013 02:21 | 580 | |
| evaluation_process.ttl | 02-Apr-2013 02:21 | 3.9K | |
| evaluation_method.ttl | 02-Apr-2013 02:21 | 508 | |
| evaluation.ttl | 02-Apr-2013 02:21 | 1.9K | |
| catalog-v001.xml | 02-Apr-2013 02:21 | 4.9K | |
| application.ttl | 02-Apr-2013 02:21 | 315 | |
This directory contains an OWL 2 representation of the Ontology of Ontology Evaluation which is intended to be faithful to the conceptual drawings developed during the HC-05 hackathon.
A Turtle file corresponds to each of the drawings. evaluation.ttl imports all of the other files.
These files were tested using Protege 4.2.0 (Build 295), available at protege.stanford.edu. Each is self-contained (resulting in some duplicate class definitions, which isn't a problem). All the files use the same http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/Hackathon-Clinics/HC-05_Ontology-of-OntologyEvaluation/owl/evaluation namespace, which is resolvable modulo HTTP content negotiation.
Below we discuss some of the decisions made andissues encountered in developing this OWL 2 representation. Many are generally applicable to other representations. Some of the files also contain TODO comments.
We make heavy use of owl:allValuesFrom restrictions (OWL's version of FOL forall), which are essentially class-specific versions of rdfs:range. Many of our properties are reused (a good thing), so rdfs:range is generally too restrictive.
We should verify that such restrictions are appropriate, both within and potentially outside the ontology. For instance, agents can potentially manage many things (ontology requirements, people, companies, etc.). In some cases, it may be more appropriate to use the inverse of the property, e.g. an ontology requirement is managed by an agent.
In some cases, a class uses the same property (e.g. defines) with values of multiple types. We generally model this using an owl:allValuesFrom restriction to an anonymous owl:unionOf class. The disadvantage of this approach is that owl:unionOf closes off its list of classes (e.g. additional value types can't be added elsewhere). Again, we should ensure that such restrictions are appropriate, both within and potentially outside the ontology. It may be necessary to merge lists or use less constrained restrictions.
owl:someValuesFrom restrictions (OWL's version of FOL exists) can be used to indicate that a property has some (but not necessarily all) values of a given type, but it also implies owl:minCardinality 1, which may not be appropriate in many cases.
It's often useful (e.g. to human readers or GUIs) to indicate that a given property is relevant to a class even if we're not able to say anything more about it.
A tautological owl:minQualifiedCardinality 0 restriction can be used to associate a property relating 2 classes without XXX. Qualified cardinality restrictions were added in OWL 2.
Similarly, a tautological owl:minCardinality 0 statement can be used to associate a property with a class without specifying the type of its value.
The conceptual diagrams do not specify cardinalities, so we don't otherwise specify them. Cardinalities should presumably be specified, where appropriate, as the ontology is refined.