ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] Re: [dao-forum] PurpleWiki as an ontology editor

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: DigitalArtOntology <dao-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:12:29 -0800
Message-id: <401A907D.9030907@xxxxxxxx>
A very interesting thread (at [dao-forum] and [pw-devel]) which I will 
try to cross-post here (and would invite posters to continue the 
cross-posting to all three lists, because it is so relevant).    (01)

It addresses the very subject of whether the wiki would make a good 
platform for ontology development -- a proposition that was brought up 
before, when the [ontolog-forum] was still deliberating on methodologies.    (02)

Here goes ...    (03)

========
Danny Ayers wrote Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:59:08 +0100:    (04)

>>Can PurpleWiki be modified to be an ontology editing tool?  My guess
>>is yes, but the truth is that I'm not sure.  Or, more accurately, I'm
>>not sure if it's worth it.
>>
>>I think that Wikis already come close to mapping to a Topic Map model,
>>as I explain at:
>>
>>  http://www.eekim.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikisAsTopicMaps    (05)

> I think it would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater to make the
> Wiki more complex - Nooron's a great idea, but I reckon too much is exposed
> here : http://www.nooron.org/know/computing_systems_ontology    (06)

> Coming at it from an RDF/OWL point of view, I'll try by saying we want Wiki
> pages to describe the People and PurplePeople classes, I think that could
> look something like this:    (07)

> [[
> ClassPeople
> ------------
> ClassPurplePeople
> 
> CategoryOntology
> ]]
> 
> 
> 
> [[
> ClassPurplePeople
> ------------
> ClassPeople
> 
> EugeneEricKim
> ChrisDent
> 
> CategoryOntology
> ]]    (08)

> The page title gives the class name, and asserts it's a class. The two
> people included would be read as instances of the class (no prefix).    (09)

> I'm not sure about CategoryOntology, but something would be needed to say
> 'give this page special treatment' to any processor.    (010)

> But the problem is exactly as you describe: the links aren't typed. The
> ClassPeople page might (should?) have a link back saying ClassPurplePeople -
> which way would the hierachy run?    (011)

> So is here an easy way of typing links? The best I could come up with went
> like this :    (012)

> A regular (non-ontological) link looks like [http://example.org title]
> this could be extended to read [http://example.org title prefix:property]    (013)

> I'm not sure exactly what to do about CamelCase links, but what about
> [WikiPageTitle prefix:property]    (014)

> where prefix is the namespace prefix and property is the specific
> relationship.    (015)

> So in the example above the link in ClassPeople would read
> 
> [ClassPurplePeople rdfs:subClass]
> 
> Somewhere there'd need to be a map between namespace prefixes and the full
> URIs, but that should be straightforward.    (016)

> When pages get created/modified, the parser sends messages to an RDF API to
> create the appropriate statements. A link somewhere will allow it to be
> viewed as RDF/XML, n3 or whatever. Alternately, it could be done lazily -
> only when an 'export' link is clicked does the RDF extractor go to work, but
> I think there is an advantage in realtime creation of the RDF model.    (017)

> I've already made a start on coding some of this stuff in my own
> Wiki-hacking (I want a Wiki interface to IdeaGraph) but so far have only got
> as far as creating the really obvious metadata for page creation (dates etc,
> using the Jena API). Another design choice has meant I've got quite a bit of
> other parser-related work to do (I want the Wiki pages persisted as XHTML,
> WikiText only used for editing).    (018)

> Cheers,
> Danny.    (019)

========
Eugene Eric Kim wrote Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:34:26 -0800:    (020)

 > On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 10:12:35PM -0800, Kenneth Fields wrote:    (021)

 >>.... to turn a wiki into an ontology authoring tool maybe.
 >>Seems natural. NewClass simply makes a new class
 >>in your ontology. We need a quick open methodology for
 >>going to a site with your new hot idea and inputing your class
 >>and properties in two seconds. If it could be done from
 >>your cell  phone - all the better :). RSS feed must inform
 >>the ontology community that the ontology has been updated,
 >>while 9 or 10 'votes' will  confirm that class as validated.    (022)

 > Check out Nooron, which seems to be what you're describing:
 >
 >   http://www.nooron.org/
 >
 > Shawn Murphy, Nooron's creator, incorporated Wiki elements in order
 > to make it easy to edit ontologies.  Nooron uses OKBC on the
 > backend.    (023)

 > Can PurpleWiki be modified to be an ontology editing tool?  My guess
 > is yes, but the truth is that I'm not sure.  Or, more accurately,
 > I'm not sure if it's worth it.    (024)

 > I think that Wikis already come close to mapping to a Topic Map
 > model, as I explain at:
 >
 >   http://www.eekim.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikisAsTopicMaps    (025)

 > However, there is some debate as to whether or not Topic Maps are
 > rich enough to express "true" ontologies.  (There's been some recent
 > discussion about this very topic on Peter's ontolog mailing list.)    (026)

 > If we take a hardline view on this and say that it is not, then the
 > question stands: What do we need to do to PurpleWiki (or any Wiki
 > for that matter) to use it for editing ontologies?  And is it worth
 > it?    (027)

 > I personally would like PurpleWiki to become rich enough to express
 > Topic Maps, but I'm not keen on evolving it to compete with Protege.
 > I just don't see the value, but perhaps that's because I'm not in
 > the business of constructing formal ontologies.  I'd certainly like
 > to hear opinions to the contrary, however, and people are also
 > welcome to show the value of doing this by actually doing it.
 > That's the beauty of open source.
 >
 > -Eugene    (028)


===========
Kenneth Fields wrote Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:12:35 -0800 (PST):    (029)

 > On Jan 30, 2004, at 7:27 AM, Eugene Eric Kim wrote:
 >
 >> Hi Ken,
 >>
 >> What do you mean by Semantic Web compliancy?  Embedding OWL or RDF
 >> tags isn't a problem; the question is, what would we embed them
 >> with?
 >>
 >> -Eugene    (030)

 > ... to turn a wiki into an ontology authoring tool maybe.
 > Seems natural. NewClass simply makes a new class
 > in your ontology. We need a quick open methodology for
 > going to a site with your new hot idea and inputing your class
 > and properties in two seconds. If it could be done from
 > your cell  phone - all the better :). RSS feed must inform
 > the ontology community that the ontology has been updated,
 > while 9 or 10 'votes' will  confirm that class as validated.
 >
 > ken    (031)


=======
 > On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 03:12:52PM -0800, Peter Yim wrote:
 >>Kenneth Fields wrote Fri, 30 Jan 2004 01:57:26 +0800:
 >>
 >>>Is the purplewiki actually moving toward Semantic Web compliancy?
 >>>Embedded OWL and RDF tags?
 >>
 >>I'll let either Eugene (Eugene Eric Kim) or Chris (Chris Dent),
 >>principal developers of PurpleWiki, answer you directly on this one.
 >
 >    (032)

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (033)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [ontolog-forum] Re: [dao-forum] PurpleWiki as an ontology editor, Peter Yim <=