Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Breaking News: Google supports GoodRelations

[Alex Shkotin <alex.shkotin@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi All,

it may be useful.
Attached is a dictionary of http://www.heppnetz.de/ontologies/goodrelations/v1.owl

Alex

2010/11/7 Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi John:

Thanks for your congratulations!

More comments inline:

On 04.11.2010, at 14:57, John F. Sowa wrote:

> Martin,
>
> I would like to add my congratulations on the adoption of the
> GoodRelations vocabulary by Google.  This is a big win, which
> should establish it as a de facto standard for the industry.
>
> For the record, following is the announcement on the Google site:
>
>    http://code.google.com/p/goodrelations-for-oscommerce/

Note that this is the page of a shopping cart extension for
GoodRelations, not the GoodRelations announcement.
The official announcement is here

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2010/11/rich-snippets-for-shopping-sites.html

>
> I spent some time browsing through the documents on the various sites,
> and the following UML diagram is a good summary of the classes and
> their interrelationships:
>
>    http://www.heppnetz.de/ontologies/goodrelations/goodrelations-UML.png

Thanks!

Note that the UML diagram is just an approximation of the formal
account of GoodRelations.

>
> Eventually, I came to eClassOWL - The Web Ontology for Products and
> Services:
>
>    http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/eclassowl/

Note that eClassOWL is just one of many *optional* ontologies that
complement GoodRelations by providing classes and properties for types
of products and services.

There are many others, and eClassOWL is the oldest of all those,
initially developed in 2005.

The reason that eClassOWl is so big is that it is the aim of properly
representing a standard of 30,000 classes and 5,000 properties in OWL
DL.

While the constraints of OWL blow up the size of the specification a
little bit, the main reason for the size of the ontology is the size
of the underlying standard.

>
> And the following passage reminded me why I hate RDF and OWL:
>
>> Downloads: eClassOWL 5.1.4 Products and Services Ontology
>>
>> * http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/ontologies/eclass/5.1.4/ (RDF/XML
>> or HTML
>>  via content negotiation - Warning: The files are very large -
>> 38.3...71.8 MB)
>> * RDF/XML (Warning: The file is very large - 38.3 MB)
>> * HTML (Warning: The file is very large - 71.8 MB)
>> * ZIP: RDF/XML+HTML (eClassOWL 5.1.4 ontology and documentation,
>> compressed
>>  - RDF/XML + HTML, zip, 4.7 MB)
>
> It also shows why Google does not use RDF + OWL.  They provide the
> interfaces to it, and they process web sites that use it.  But they
> have developed more streamlined notations and methods for themselves
> and the clients who use their software.


>
>

> RDFa is an important step towards simplification, but the three
> letters
> R-D-F show that there's a huge amount of bloat lurking behind RDFa.
>
> The total vocabulary for GoodRelations + eClassOWL could be defined
> in a tiny fraction of the size with any common notation used in AI.

Please do not mix GoodRelations and eClassOWL. GoodRelations alone is
small and concise, with just 27 classes, see

http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1.owl

For more info on complementing vocabularies for verticals, see here

http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations#Vocabularies_for_Products_and_Services_Types_and_Features

Take for example the Vehicle Sales Ontology (VSO) for Cars, Boats, etc.

  http://purl.org/vso/ns


As for syntax, note that GoodRelations data can be expressed using a
variety of syntactical forms, including OData, JSON-LD, etc. see

   http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/Syntaxes4GoodRelations

It should also be possible to create a lossless serialization in WSML,
F-Logic, or CycL, but given that GoodRelations is a *Web* ontology I
currently don't see the real benefit; at least it's not a priority.

Best

Martin

> I'm not recommending that IT developers should learn AI or Cyc,
> but I believe that it's time to rethink all the technology related
> to semantics, ontology, and interoperable systems.
>
> The following slides summarize my views on the issues, but there's
> much more to be said:
>
>    http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/iss
>    Integrating Semantic Systems
>
> John
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>


_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

GoodRelations.v1.dics.txt
Description: Text document

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (01)