Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-owl] Best Practice for multilingual ontologies
herbert.schentz at umweltbundesamt.at
Wed Sep 20 22:51:18 PDT 2006
Thanks Olivier, thanks Steve!
I learned through your discussion, that there are a lot of different things I have to take into account. Thank you for that! I think I have to be aware of "incomplete" languages, not containing translations for all concepts and we will, even in Europe have some sort of "Master Language" (English and Latin for some concepts).
Did I get you right, that I should work with separate classes and instances for each language, setting them equivalent, and not with (dc-) annotations, because you can not reason against annotations ? (I know that there are problems in graphical displays and searching of annotations)
T: +43-(0)1-313 04/5308
F: +43-(0)1-313 04/3555
herbert.schentz at umweltbundesamt.at <mailto:herbert.schentz at umweltbundesamt.at>
Spittelauer Lände 5
Von: protege-owl-bounces at lists.stanford.edu [mailto:protege-owl-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] Im Auftrag von Steven Wartik
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. September 2006 23:31
An: User support for the Protege-OWL editor
Betreff: Re: [protege-owl] Best Practice for multilingual ontologies
Hmm. I think I was assuming some tool capabilities that do not currently exist, even in (gasp!) Protégé. I like the notion of a concept being independent of language -- a rose by any other name, and all that -- and want to tell my ontology editor "Use the English version" or "Use the Sanskrit version" without having to switch URIs. Then too, would you want to map only the German version of an ontology? I'd think it would be more useful to map concepts in myOntology.owl. Maybe I'm not understanding what you desire to map.
But as you point out, my approach either asks a lot of whoever is responsible for myOntology.owl, or requires some advanced capability that allows basically anyone to make certain edits to an ontology. I rather prefer my ideal world, but I may need to live in yours for the foreseeable future.
Olivier Dameron wrote:
Quoting Steven Wartik <swartik at ida.org> <mailto:swartik at ida.org> :
I agree with your idea about modularization. I am curious to know why
you would have myOntology-??.owl import myOntology.owl, rather than the
other way around. If myOntology.owl imports myOntology-en.owl,
myOntology-fr.owl, etc. then everyone can reference a single URI, yet
still have access to the ontology in their preferred language.
The idea is that people may only be interested in some of the
languages, not all, or even
no language at all. This way, they can choose whatever they like.
Second, I assume that you are not going to do all the translations in
More likely, each language will be contributed by a different person.
This way, thay can
all manage and share their language-specific part the way they like, without a
centralised repository. You could even have several versions of a same
language (not sure
if that would really be useful, though, just speculating)
Eventually, I also see your point to have a bundle. Well, nothing
prevents you from
- myOntology-en.owl, myOntology-de.owl, etc, each one importing myOntology.owl
- myOntology-multilingual.owl that imports all the language-specific ones
This way, people can choose the bare ontology, the ontology + some
languages, or the
ontology + all languages.
PS: if at some point you want to map myOntology-de.owl with some other
you obviously won't need the french part.
protege-owl mailing list
protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the protege-owl