Re: [ontolog-forum] Reusable Metadata Ontology

[Andrea Westerinen <arwesterinen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Pat and Kingsley and others who responded,
Sorry for taking so long to reply (but work got in the way).  I just updated the reusable metadata ontology on the GitHub site (http://purl.org/ninepts/metadata).  As documented before, click on the version of the ontology that you want (functional syntax, rdf/xml or turtle) and get the "Raw" version for import into Protege or a triple store (or whatever).

One (hopefully interesting) addition that I made is a new property, competencyQuestions, for the ontology.  I also defined a competencyQuery property.  The latter is a SPARQL query that could be executed to validate the ontology.  There is one competencyQuery for each competency question.  (The queries are not very interesting for the metadata-annotations ontology, since it is just a bunch of annotation properties, but the overall approach seems valuable.)

Now, back to the replies ...

Pat said ... "One should always re-use existing (and widely deployed) IRIs where possible. If you want your ontology to actually be used, that is."

I updated the IRIs for the contributor, coverage, creator, date, description, language, relation and rights properties to use the DC IRIs, and for the *Label, note and *Note properties to use the SKOS IRIs.  I did not change the IRIs for the mappingRelations (since my properties were a bit different in definition and naming).

Pat also said ... "You can use the DC and SKOS IRIs without actually importing the RDFs, so you only use the ones you need. Importation is a red herring here."

You are right.  I just used the IRIs where the properties did match up.  I did not import the full RDFs.

Kingsley said ... "my concern boils down to not seeing labels and comments as part of the entity descriptions in the RDF document I looked at. Maybe you can provide a sample entity URI for me to investigate further."

I think that I addressed this in the new ontologies that were loaded.  You should now see prefLabels and descriptions for everything, scopeNotes for most properties, and comments for some properties.

Andrea Westerinen

T: 425.891.8407

arwesterinen@xxxxxxxxx or andreaw@xxxxxxxxxxx

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AndreaWesterinen

organizingknowledge.blogspot.com

On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 19, 2014, at 10:38 PM, Andrea Westerinen <arwesterinen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.

Bad practice! One should always re-use existing (and widely deployed) IRIs where possible. If you want your ontology to actually be used, that is.

>  And, I have avoided importing the Dublin Core and SKOS RDFs, because you then get all the concepts from those schemas.

You can use the DC and SKOS IRIs without actually importing the RDFs, so you only use the ones you need. Importation is a red herring here.

>  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.

Actually those short labels are declared locally to your document, so you could change them if you like. However, they do have to be *different*, which might not solve your customers' problems.

Pat Hayes

 

<SNIP>

 

>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/
> Com

                                    (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St.            (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile (preferred)
phayes@xxxxxxx       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes

_________________________________________________________________
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)