Thanks to everyone willing to participate! (01)
The most important aspect of our project to stress now is the
following: JORD Reference Data Library is not an OWL ontology. Despite
.owl extension, it is really RDF with custom set of properties. (02)
Upper ontology http://rds.posccaesar.org/2008/02/OWL/ISO-15926-2_2003
is an OWL, and JORD RDL can be considered instance data for that, but
I don't remember seeing anywhere instance data with such reach
semantic network of relationships not inherited from class structure. (03)
The most important differences for tool application are: (04)
Rich type system of 201 type, classes and individuals, but classes
include classes of individuals, classes of classes and classes of
relationships. (05)
Fill reification: relational entities (relationships and classes of
relationships) are first-class objects, with their own URIs. Therefore
classification and specialization are not modelled via rdf:type and
owl:subClassOf properties, they have their own types. (06)
It is important to understand first - whether it is possible to modify
existing instruments to recognize such RDF modelling conventions, or
it will be better to implement checks and metrics in tools already
aligned to work with this specific representation? (07)
Regards,
Victor Agroskin
TechInvestLab.ru (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2013/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (09)
|