On 2/12/14 3:06 AM, Anatoly Levenchuk wrote:
> Patrick,
> It sound as a possible good Hackathon project to me. Do you want to try it
> in Hackathon form to begin with? (01)
+1 (02)
Mapping/Meta/Bridge ontologies are the crucial item here. It is easier
(and better) to incorporate schema.org terms into your ontology (which
is what I do). Once you have your own mappings, they can be used as
inference rules that are aligned with your own "context lenses" (so to
speak) on relevant data. (03)
My earlier post about owl:equivalentClass based reasoning & inference
[1] demonstrates this approach in action. (04)
BTW -- do you have a URL for a document that describes your ontology? (05)
Links: (06)
[1] http://bit.ly/MyzbAh -- equivalent class based reasoning & inference (07)
Kingsley
>
> 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/
> (08)
-- (09)
Regards, (010)
Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen (011)
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (01)
|