Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[protege-discussion] OWL2 Classes

Robert Stevens robert.stevens at manchester.ac.uk
Sat Mar 17 14:09:16 PDT 2012


Jim

SKOS is OWL (2 or whatever  - the distinction at this point is immaterial).

SKOS has one class called concept. All terms are 
indiviiduals of this class (though you can, of 
course, make your own subclasses of concept). it 
has built in object properties of broaderThan, 
narrowerthan, and relatedTo. It has built in 
annotation properties of  prefLable, altLabel, scopeNote and so on.

SKOS is an OWL ontology and thus for all 
practical consideations OWL 2. it has access to 
all those featues should you want to use them. It 
just supplies the things that most thesaurae 
need. SKOS is an OWL (2) vocabulary designed to represent thesaurae.


19:24 17/03/2012, Jim Tivy wrote:
>Robert
>
>Thanks for the tip – I will review OWL 1.
>
>I think OWL2 class is “Syntactic sugar” as they 
>said in the OWL2 planning document.
>
>That said, the Class, Individual abstractions of 
>OWL2 are very clean and coherent. The thing I am 
>wrestling with is if a Class should have been an Individual.
>
>Jim
>
>From: robert Stevens [mailto:robert.stevens at manchester.ac.uk]
>Sent: March-17-12 11:33 AM
>To: Jim Tivy; 'robert Stevens'; 'User support 
>for Core Protege and the Protege-Frames editor'
>Subject: Re: [protege-discussion] OWL2 Classes
>
>It is OWL and thus has what OWl has - it has 
>domain and range constraints in the same way that OWL does.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:jimt at bluestream.com>Jim Tivy
>To: 
><mailto:robert.stevens at cs.manchester.ac.uk>'robert 
>Stevens' ; 
><mailto:protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu>'User 
>support for Core Protege and the Protege-Frames editor'
>Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 6:18 PM
>Subject: RE: [protege-discussion] OWL2 Classes
>
>Agreed SKOS has what I want but does SKOS have 
>property domain and range definitions – something that approaches schema.
>
>I think OWL2 has a powerful data model that is 
>coherent.  I find all the others to be somewhat less incoherent.
>
>     <skos:Concept 
> rdf:about="<http://my.site.com/#cleaning>http://my.site.com/#cleaning">
>         <skos:prefLabel>Washing</skos:prefLabel>
>         <skos:scopeNote>Washing results in 
> something becoming physically cleaner.</skos:scopeNote>
>         <skos:broader 
> rdf:resource="http://my.site.com/#periodic%20maintenance"/>
>         <skos:related rdf:resource="http://my.site.com/#problem%20solving"/>
>         <skos:RT>cleaning maintenance</skos:RT>
>         <skos:STA>Approved</skos:STA>
>         <skos:INP>2011-11-15</skos:INP>
>         <skos:APP>2011-11-15</skos:APP>
>         <skos:UPD>2012-02-08</skos:UPD>
>     </skos:Concept>
>
>From: 
>protege-discussion-bounces at lists.stanford.edu 
>[mailto:protege-discussion-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] 
>On Behalf Of robert Stevens
>Sent: March-17-12 2:11 AM
>To: User support for Core Protege and the Protege-Frames editor
>Subject: Re: [protege-discussion] OWL2 Classes
>
>it seems that you are describing SKOS - the 
>W3C's Simple Knowledge Organisation System. SKOS 
>itself is (sort of) a vocabulary in OWL2. SKOS 
>has, without too much inspection, most of what 
>you lay out below. There is an Editor plugin for Protege called SKOSED.
>
>SKOS has a class "concept" and individuals of 
>that class are the vocabulary's terms. SKOS 
>comes with  bt, nt, and rt properties, as well 
>as notions of concept scheme and so on. You can 
>also use all of OWL 2 within it (including the 
>reasoning which is v interesting - at a trivial 
>level, it wil put in all your inverses for you wihout you having to do it...)
>
>do say if it meets your needs - I'd be interested.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:jimt at bluestream.com>Jim Tivy
>To: 
><mailto:protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu>'User 
>support for Core Protege and the Protege-Frames editor'
>Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 1:07 AM
>Subject: Re: [protege-discussion] OWL2 Classes
>
>Hi Timothy
>
>Thanks for laying out the OWL2 formalisms.  I 
>think OWL2 is a great data modelling system.
>I only need to manipulate the data structure in 
>a few ways and I am happy to write those by 
>hand.  I would like to discuss data modelling 
>first, then discuss reasoning (or rather agree 
>not to discuss reasoning as right now reasoning does not seem interesting).
>
>What I want to do is represent a Thesaurus which 
>is a common well defined structure that is 
>described many places including here: 
><http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/thesprin.htm>http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/thesprin.htm
>
>In English (not in OWL2) I think of it this way:
>There is a class of objects called Terms, some 
>of which are in a hierarchy some of which are 
>not.  Each Term needs to have the following properties:
>-        Scope Node
>-        Broad Term
>-        Narrow Term
>-        Related Terms
>
>My thought is to model this in OWL2 (excuse my paraphrase of OWL FL) as:
>
>Declare Class Term
>Declare Property(ScopeNode)
>Declare Property(HasChild)  // to subsume BroadTerm and NarrowTerm are
>Declare Property(RelatedTerm)
>PropertyDomain(ScopeNode,Term)
>

>
>
>Individual(myns:Dog)
>InClass(myns:Dog,Term)
>ObjectPropertyAssertion(myns:HasChild,myns:Boxer,myns:Dog)
>
>And so on

>
>Is that enough information?
>
>Jim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>From: 
><mailto:protege-discussion-bounces at lists.stanford.edu>protege-discussion-bounces at lists.stanford.edu 
>[mailto:protege-discussion-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] 
>On Behalf Of Timothy Redmond
>Sent: March-16-12 5:13 PM
>To: 
><mailto:protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu>protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
>Subject: Re: [protege-discussion] OWL2 Classes
>
>On 3/16/12 1:22 PM, Jim Tivy wrote:
>Hi Folks
>
>I am looking to implement a Thesaurus using the 
>OWL2 model.  It seems the recommended OWL2 
>modelling is to use a class for each 
>term..  When I look at class, however, it seems 
>that it is very weak because the mechanism for 
>attaching properties to classes is weak.
>
>Actually I think that the OWL 2 formalism is 
>very expressive.  The thing that you have to 
>figure out is exactly what you mean by 
>"attaching properties to a class".   So if you 
>have a class, A, a class B and a property p you can say
>all individuals in the class A must have a p-property value:
>A SubClassOf p some Thing
>    * all individuals in the class A must have a 
> p-property value that is in the class B:
>    A SubClassOf p some B
>    * if some individual, i, has a p-property 
> value then the individual i must be an element of the class A:
>    p domain A
>
>This is only just barely scratching the 
>surface.  So tell us what you are trying to 
>express and we can start thinking about whether OWL 2 can express it.
>
>I think I am better served to have one class 
>called “Terms” or “Concepts” whose individuals 
>express the Thesaurus.  In that way I can 
>constrain properties and reason about these individuals more naturally.
>
>
>It may be that this is true but it seems very 
>unlikely to me.  My sense is that if you don't 
>have a rich class structure then you are not 
>going to have much to reason about with the individuals.
>
>I realize Class==Concept in OWL2, however I 
>think that since Class itself is not an 
>individual that it is too weak.  What ever 
>happened to the notion of the Class Class.
>
>What is the "Class Class"?  If you are thinking 
>of meta-modeling, then my reaction is that I 
>think that realistic meta-modeling is probably 
>often quite difficult to get right.  But in any 
>case, the starting point is to figure out what 
>you are trying to say.  Then we can figure out 
>what language capabilities you need to express your concept.
>
>-Timothy
>
>
>Jim
>
>Jim Tivy – CTO, Bluestream
>Skype: jimt.vanc
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>protege-discussion mailing list
><mailto:protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu>protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
>https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion
>
>Instructions for unsubscribing: 
><http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03>http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>protege-discussion mailing list
><mailto:protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu>protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
>https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion
>
>Instructions for unsubscribing: 
><http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03>http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-discussion/attachments/20120317/5545a7fe/attachment.html>


More information about the protege-discussion mailing list