|
Leo and Kingsley, Here are some replies (thanks for the dialog): * Kingsley wrote: "... there are a lot of raw URIs in the scope
of the viewer. You alleviate this problem by adding more rdfs:label,
skos:prefLabel etc.. relations i.e., I would have a label and
comment (at the very least) for every entity described in these
documents." There actually is a label, a description and much more for each entity. The difference is that the ontology uses its own namespace, and not the standard ones. And, I have avoided importing the Dublin Core and SKOS RDFs, because you then get all the concepts from those schemas. In a comment on the ontology, I discuss what I did not map from Dublin Core and SKOS, and why. I was trying to make a succinct ontology that listed the "recommended" properties that should be provided for a reusable ontology. (Which also means that I will be adding more details - like documenting the competency questions for the ontology. I just started with Dublin Core and SKOS.) Also, there are two sides to the coin of using the standard annotations. If you have a tool that reads/writes the standard properties, then all is good. However, if you are creating your own application, you have to remember when writing queries (or hand-editing ontologies, etc.) that rdfs is the prefix for label, skos is the prefix for prefLabel, etc. I was hoping to simplify this. I have some customers doing their own ontologies that get confused by all the namespaces. * Leo wrote: "If I am reading you right, Andrea, (and please correct me if I’m wrong) ... what you are intending to do is to enable
OWL
(ontology, rather than a SKOS lexical vocabulary) to provide you via
annotation properties ways to align ontology constructs. Unfortunately
in OWL, more complex statements of axioms do have to be put into
annotations/documentation." This was not my intent with the annotation properties. I was not trying to do alignment, but simply to document the correspondence of the concepts. As I said in my previous email, annotation properties are "obviously totally inadequate to do anything significant, but [they are] a start as a documentation tool ... Separately, I am working on a more formal approach to mapping, but starting with documentation is where I am."
Hope this helps explain things better, and thanks for the feedback. On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Obrst, Leo J. <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
_________________________________________________________________ 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 (01) |
) Separately, I am working on a more formal approach to mapping but starting with documentation is where I am.