Re: [ontology-summit] First Cut: OAF in OWL

[Michael F Uschold <uschold@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Alan, these are good comments.  See inline remarks.

On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Michael F Uschold <uschold@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I created a first draft of an owl ontology for the Ontology Application
> Framework. The idea is that it should be easy for people to create and
> characterize ontology application instances on their own. There is not quite
> enough content yet.
> Eventually we could build up a searchable database of semantically marked up
> ontology applications.  It could also be linked with DOAP Ontology possibly
> using some of the same infrastructure tools.   (DOAP: Description of a
> Project)
> All files are in this Folder
> OntologyApplicationFramework.owl Core ontology.
>
> BenefitsAndTechniques.owl Imports core ontology and adds some relationships
> between benefits and technologies.

Some comments - technical.

You might consider using owl:versionIRI so that loading
BenefitsAndTechniques.owl successfully finds the required import.

I'm not sure how this works - I'll look into it.

 

Is UseTime not a subclass of OntologyRole?

I think it may be more of a facet/aspect of f the OntologyRole.  The OntologyRole answers the question: "how is the ontology used".  E.g. to drive UI forms, or to get everyone on the same page in an enterprise.  Then UseTime is an aspect of that.  I don't see it as a subclass, but it  might be.  It will become more clear when we get more examples instances and subclasses of  OntologyRole.

 

OntologyRole: The role of an ontology answers the question: how is the
ontology used in an application. An OntologyRole role can also be a
TechnologyOrTechnique, e.g. to drive user interface forms.
UseTime: When is the ontology used?  e.g. design time or run time.

Many(all) of the current individuals in the ontology seem like
classes, e.g. ApplicationDeveloper, ApplicationUser...

Yes, this is the old classes as values problem.  Strictly, they are classes. For my purposes, I just want to talk about roles.  For example,  I want to be able to say the Stakeholder is the CEO or the end-user, or the developer.  If we want to model actual individuals, then we might want to model them as classes.

Not sure the best way to handle this in the longer term. Maybe I should use OWL full?

Is there a plan to have this ontology extend from one of the
upper-level ontologies? (best practices/teach your children well, and
all that?)

Regarding DOAP, I have used it with OBI. You can browse how we have used it at
http://owl.cs.manchester.ac.uk/browser/individuals/-1947943038/?session=12e7c7ac79e-7043-12e7c7d0545

This link is not working for me just now. 

Best,
Alan

ps. If these comments are off-target, then let me know off-line so I
don't offer more.

They are right on target - thanks!  This is a first stab, the more good feedback I get the better the result.

--
Michael Uschold, PhD
   Senior Ontology Consultant, Semantic Arts

   LinkedIn: http://tr.im/limfu
   Skype, Twitter: UscholdM

_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/   
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011  
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/     (01)