Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-owl] Best approach for incorporating meta information
alanruttenberg at gmail.com
Fri Feb 13 08:41:29 PST 2009
For representing the metainformation, you might consider the
Annotations that are available in OWL 2.
To keep the bulk of the annotations separate the idea would be to keep
them in a separate ontology that is imported into the main ontology.
If you want to "strip" the annotations, you don't do the import.
The only nit is the ability to annotate entities that can't naturally
be referred to outside the ontology proper: Axioms and anonymous
individuals. In this case you can include a minimal annotation in the
ontology proper naming the entity, and then attach the main
annotations to that name. E.g.
SubClassOf( Annotation( rdfs:comment "Children are people." ) a:Child a:Person )
SubClassOf( Annotation( a:axiomName a:axiom1 ) a:Child a:Person )
and then in the imported metadata ontology file:
AnnotationAssertion( rdfs:label a:axiom1 "Children are people." )
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Paradies, Simon
<simon.paradies.ext at siemens.com> wrote:
> Hi Protégé community,
> Currently, I'm developing a Protégé plug-in that generates additional meta information which should be persisted somewhere (Ontology should remain OWL-DL at least).
> So far, I know about the following options to store meta information:
> - PropertyLists
> - setClientInfo() method
> - the KB itself
> - more?
> Ideally, I'd like to have my metadata incorporated with my actual data (even outside of Protégé) but on the other hand is should be easily separable/removable.
> The method (generated meta information) should be as future proof/versatile as possible, e.g. also working without problems with the database backend and other plug-ins as needed.
> That's why I'd like to avoid the first two options as they seem a bit to Protégé specific and maybe the meta information provided by the plug-in could be useful in other tools as well (Protégé 4).
> I tend to use the third option and to create a meta ontology which would need to be imported by an ontology using the plug-in.
> Ideally, all meta information could be removed by removing the meta ontology from the ontology.
> However, when I tested this in Protégé 3.4 OWL, the meta ontology was gone but its instances still dangled in the ontology. Is there a way to also remove instances of meta ontologies when it is removed from an ontology?
> In general, are there better ways for incorporating metadata (any design patterns etc.) for the specified case?
> External service provider at Siemens AG
> Corporate Technology
> CT IC 1
> Otto-Hahn-Ring 6
> 81739 Munich, Germany
> Tel.: +49 (89) 636-41451
> Fax: +49 (89) 636-49438
> mailto:simon.paradies.ext at siemens.com <mailto:simon.paradies.ext at siemens.com>
> Important notice: This e-mail and any attachment thereof contain corporate proprietary information. If you have received it by mistake, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and delete this e-mail and its attachments from your system. Thank you.
> protege-owl mailing list
> protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
More information about the protege-owl