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] Not all properties are show in dcterm ontology

Uri Shani SHANI at il.ibm.com
Mon Oct 29 00:36:13 PDT 2012


Thanks Timothy for your answer. I suppose that I will simply recreate 
these two specific properties of dcterms rather than
trying to import the entire vocabulary. Seems that protege did the same, 
recreating inline all the annotation properties from dcterms
in the importing ontology itself.

Many thanks,
- Uri


From:   protege-discussion-request at lists.stanford.edu
To:     protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu, 
Date:   29/10/2012 08:22 AM
Subject:        protege-discussion Digest, Vol 75, Issue 29
Sent by:        protege-discussion-bounces at lists.stanford.edu



Send protege-discussion mailing list submissions to
                 protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
                 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
                 protege-discussion-request at lists.stanford.edu

You can reach the person managing the list at
                 protege-discussion-owner at lists.stanford.edu

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of protege-discussion digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Help : Protege 4.2 Alpha (Timothy Redmond)
   2. Re: Not all properties are show in dcterm          ontology
      (Timothy Redmond)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 14:39:59 -0700
From: Timothy Redmond <tredmond at stanford.edu>
To: protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: [protege-discussion] Help : Protege 4.2 Alpha
Message-ID: <508DA62F.5000303 at stanford.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"

On 10/26/2012 04:44 AM, Dinbandhu Laxman Gauda wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Does prot?g? 4.2 Alpha supports Database backend.? If yes where can I 
> find the documentation of it ?
>

There are three database backends that work with Protege.  One of them 
is developed by our group and the other two are here [1,2].

Of these the one that currently looks the most interesting is [2]. They 
have integrated their database with a collaborative server and it looks 
like a very interesting offering.

I haven't been doing much with the database back for Protege 4.2 because 
it seems like the costs of using a database outweigh the benefits, 
especially for Protege 4.1 which has a relatively small memory footprint.

-Timothy


[1]http://sourceforge.net/projects/owldb/
[2]http://www.sharegov.org/#!projects.html  <
http://www.sharegov.org/#%21projects.html>
[3] 
https://smi-protege.stanford.edu/repos/protege/protege4/libraries/org.protege.owl.database/trunk

[4] 
https://smi-protege.stanford.edu/repos/protege/protege4/plugins/org.protege.editor.owl.database/trunk




> Thanks
>
> -Dinu
>
> **************** CAUTION - Disclaimer *****************
> This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended 
solely
> for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, 
please
> notify the sender by e-mail and delete the original message. Further, 
you are not
> to copy, disclose, or distribute this e-mail or its contents to any 
other person and
> any such actions are unlawful. This e-mail may contain viruses. Infosys 
has taken
> every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk, but is not liable for 
any damage
> you may sustain as a result of any virus in this e-mail. You should 
carry out your
> own virus checks before opening the e-mail or attachment. Infosys 
reserves the
> right to monitor and review the content of all messages sent to or from 
this e-mail
> address. Messages sent to or from this e-mail address may be stored on 
the
> Infosys e-mail system.
> ***INFOSYS******** End of Disclaimer ********INFOSYS***
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> protege-discussion mailing list
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-discussion/attachments/20121028/0fc63122/attachment-0001.html
>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 23:22:08 -0700
From: Timothy Redmond <tredmond at stanford.edu>
To: protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: [protege-discussion] Not all properties are show in
                 dcterm          ontology
Message-ID: <508E2090.5050107 at stanford.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"


This is a bit tricky because I suspect that the OWL api is trying to be 
forgiving here.  I think that the short story is that dublin core is not 
an OWL 2 ontology.  While I haven't done a complete check, I think that 
an OWL 2 compliant parser [2] should reject dublin core as an import. 
This doesn't mean that an OWL 2 ontology cannot use the vocabulary but 
it does suggest that an import statement should import a dl-compliant 
version of the ontology.

I think that the latest version of the dublin core in rdf can be found 
here [1].  I did a search through it and found that it only used the owl 
vocabulary once to state that the property

            http://purl.org/dc/terms/creator


is equivalent to the property

           http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/maker


In particular, there are no declarations of data properties or of object 
properties.  In addition, with the lack of OWL vocabulary, it is hard to 
see how an OWL 2 compliant parser [2] could meet the requirement at the 
end of section 3 of [2] which says " At the end of this process, the 
graph/G//must/be empty.".

The OWL api is trying to be helpful by not rejecting the ontology.  But 
many of the triples in the ontology are ambiguous and can be interpreted 
in more than one way.  If we are out of spec as I think, then it is not 
clear what the OWL api should be showing.

My advice would be to use the vocabulary but not the rdf import.  There 
is at least one attempt to make a dl-version of dublin core [3] but I am 
not sure of its quality.  (The obi ontology imports this so this might 
be a positive indicator.) Also, if you like, you can use the vocabulary 
without importing anything.

-Timothy


[1] http://dublincore.org/2008/01/14/dcterms.rdf
[2]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-mapping-to-rdf-20091027/#Mapping_from_RDF_Graphs_to_the_Structural_Specification

[3]http://protege.stanford.edu/plugins/owl/dc/protege-dc.owl


On 10/28/2012 05:53 AM, Uri Shani wrote:
> Hi,
> I have loaded the dcterm ontology from the network, yet when browsing 
> its resources, I cannot see all the data properties.
> Specifically: I found dcterm:title, but not dcterm:description
>
> Here is what I have done:
> I opened an ontology, clicked on the + in "Direct Imports" on the 
> Active Ontology tab.
> Than, selected second bullet for loading from a location on the web.
> Than, picked http://purl.org/dc/terms/.
> Using Protege 4.1.
> Many thanks,
> - Uri
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> *Uri Shani, PhD*
> Research Staff Member
> SPRINT(lead), DANSE (tools-net lead) Projects
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Phone:*972-4-829-6282| *Phone:*972-4-8296228| *Mobile:*972-54-697-6282*
> E-mail:*_SHANI at il.ibm.com_ <mailto:SHANI at il.ibm.com>*
> Find me on:*LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/urishani 
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/urishani>Facebook: 
> http://www.facebook.com/uri.shani <http://www.facebook.com/uri.shani>  
> IBM
>
> Haifa University, Mount Carmel
> Haifa, HA 31905
> Israel
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> protege-discussion mailing list
> 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

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
protege-discussion mailing list
protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion


End of protege-discussion Digest, Vol 75, Issue 29
**************************************************


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-discussion/attachments/20121029/5ec449ec/attachment.html>


More information about the protege-discussion mailing list