Anatoly -
Do we have access to the code of the application(s) that currently uses
schema.org?
Or are you are referring to some newly generated application? (01)
Pat (02)
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA Inc.
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
1-908-561-3416 (03)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-
>summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Anatoly Levenchuk
>Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 3:07 AM
>To: 'Ontology Summit 2014 discussion'
>Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Schema.org and COSMO
>
>Patrick,
>It sound as a possible good Hackathon project to me. Do you want to try it
in
>Hackathon form to begin with?
>
>Best regards,
>Anatoly
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-
>> summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Patrick Cassidy
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 10:34 AM
>> To: 'Ontology Summit 2014 discussion'
>> Subject: [ontology-summit] Schema.org and COSMO
>>
>> A Response to John Sowa, renamed from the thread "Are there primitive
>> concepts":
>> [JS] > If you want people to pay more attention to the COSMO
>> ontology,
>you
>> > might show how COSMO terms can improve the Schema.org definitions.
>> >
>> I am willing to work with anyone who is implementing an ontology in
>some
>> practical application, provided that we can find a way to test
>> proposed improvements and use some objective metric to decide whether
>> the application does in fact work better.
>>
>> I took a look at the OWL version of the schema.org ontology, and
>although
>> there are reasonable (and sketchy) structures within the hierachy,
>> there appear to be significant problems from a logical perspective.
>> Just one
>> example:
>>
>> There is a class 'CreativeWork' ("The most generic kind of
>> creative
>work,
>> including books, movies, photographs, software programs, etc.") with a
>> subtype (via "MediaObject") of 'AudioObject' (An audio file.). OK so
far.
>> *BUT* there is also a relation 'audio' which relates 'CreativeWork'
>> as domain to 'AudioObject' as range.
>> Since the Class 'AudioObject' is already a subclass of 'CreativeWork'
,
>> this relation does not function as a typical relation should, to
>> relate
>two or
>> more entities in a manner to add some meaning. Instances of the class
>> 'AudioObject' are already thus identified as audio objects, and do not
>need
>> the 'audio' relation to add more information. It's hard to see why
that
>> relation would be at all useful.
>> Perhaps the ontologist had in mind that a 'CreativeWork' would be an
>> abstract class and 'AudioObject' is a physical object that is a
>representation
>> of an 'AudioObject' that can be played on an audio device.
>> But that is not what the ontology says. In fact, I can't find any
>distinction
>> between a 'CreativeWork' (which, if it is to be a named individual
>> such as "Star Wars" must be abstract with multiple physical
>> embodiments) and the physical embodiments themselves, such as tapes,
>> DVDs, books, still images, movie film strips, or computer files. If
>> there
>is no
>> distinction, then there is no obvious way to relate the many different
>physical
>> exemplars of a creative work to each other.
>>
>> I will be happy to suggest alternatives that make more sense (to me)
>> logically, but that is only one of what may be many issues.
>>
>> I will be happy to discuss such issues with the developers of
>> schema.org,
>**or
>> any other ontology**, but unless someone in the developing group
>> actually suggests some specific way I can be of help, and has an
>> application to
>provide
>> a metric of utility, I would not take the initiative, but should
>> continue working on the COSMO itself for the immediate future. There
>> are still refinements that need to be made before I would want to use
>> it in a
>complex
>> application like Natural Language, one of my primary goals. COSMO as
>> is may be adequate for less complex applications.
>>
>> Pat
>>
>>
>> Patrick Cassidy
>> MICRA Inc.
>> cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
>> 1-908-561-3416
>>
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-
>> >summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
>> >Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:17 PM
>> >To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Are there primitive concepts?
>> >
>> >Pat and Andrea,
>> >
>> >PC
>> >> I think we can agree that there will be newly discovered aspects
>> of
>>>
>> reality that change our perceptions of what now seem to be primitive
>> >> concepts. So the inventory of "primitives" may change over time.
>> >
>> >That depends on what you mean by change. If you select something
>> like the >Longman's set of defining terms, then they can be
>> relatively stable
>> >-- but only because their meaning is very loosely defined.
>> >
>> >Andrea stated that point quite clearly:
>> >
>> >AW
>> >> I was advocating under-specifying related (but not fundamental)
>> >> concepts in your modules (such as the Location concept in the
>> Person >> ontology example). Then combine modules that "complete"
>> the >> under- specified concepts - where the modules that you
>> include are >>
>consistent
>> with your use cases and micro-theories ...
>> >
>> >The Schema.org terms are a large and growing set of useful but
>> >underspecified terms. Right now, those terms are defined by English
>texts
>> >that resemble OWL comments more than formal definitions.
>> >
>> >If you want people to pay more attention to the COSMO ontology, you
>> you
>> >might show how COSMO terms can improve the Schema.org definitions.
>> >
>> >John
>> >
>>
>>_________________________________________________________
>_
>> >_______
>> >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/OntologySummit2014/
>> >Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
>> >bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
>> >Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>>
>>
>>
>__________________________________________________________
>_______
>> 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/OntologySummit2014/
>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
>> bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
>> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>
>
>__________________________________________________________
>_______
>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/OntologySummit2014/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
>bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
>Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2014/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (05)
|