Compatibility between MOWL and Webprotégé

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Compatibility between MOWL and Webprotégé

Zuriñe Piña Landaburu
Good morning to all:

I woul like to know if there is possible to have compatibility between  a new ontology language, Multimedia Web Ontology Language (MOWL), and Webprotégé. It's a new language, based on OWL, and has been created to represent multimedia knowledge in ontologies. Here you can see more information:


Thank you very much,

Zuri

_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compatibility between MOWL and Webprotégé

Csongor Nyulas
Administrator
Hi Zuri,

The link you provided is not working for me, but I looked in the biblography cited for the wiki page on MOWL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_Web_Ontology_Language) and it seems that MOWL is not an extension of OWL, and is not even based on Description Logic, so without knowing too much about MOWL, I would say that you you can't load or edit a MOWL ontology in WebProtege (or Protege Desktop). I suppose there must be specialized editors for it, or maybe you would just use a text editor to edit it.

In case you don't get more informed answers from others on this mailing list, I would recommend you to contact the authors of those papers, maybe subscribe to a mailing list that they run, to find out more about editing MOWL ontologies.

Csongor


On 05/24/2016 02:39 AM, Zuriñe Piña Landaburu wrote:
Good morning to all:

I woul like to know if there is possible to have compatibility between  a new ontology language, Multimedia Web Ontology Language (MOWL), and Webprotégé. It's a new language, based on OWL, and has been created to represent multimedia knowledge in ontologies. Here you can see more information:


Thank you very much,

Zuri


_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user


_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compatibility between MOWL and Webprotégé

Bohms, H.M. (Michel)
In reply to this post by Zuriñe Piña Landaburu

 

Gives an error for me…

 

 

Dr Michel Böhms
Senior Scientist
Future Data: Semantic,Linked,Open & Big

T  +31888663107
M +31630381220
[hidden email]

Location

 

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages.

 

 

From: protege-user [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Zuriñe Piña Landaburu
Sent: 24 May 2016 11:40
To: User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop
Subject: [protege-user] Compatibility between MOWL and Webprotégé

 

Good morning to all:

 

I woul like to know if there is possible to have compatibility between  a new ontology language, Multimedia Web Ontology Language (MOWL), and Webprotégé. It's a new language, based on OWL, and has been created to represent multimedia knowledge in ontologies. Here you can see more information:

 

 

Thank you very much,

 

Zuri


_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compatibility between MOWL and Webprotégé

Bohms, H.M. (Michel)
In reply to this post by Csongor Nyulas

Hi Zuri,

 

The idea of a (potential) difference between a conceptual model and a perceptual model is interesting.

So far however more questions for me than answersJ:

Is the split really useful? Or are those two interpretations always entangled?

Even if so, do you really need another language for the one and the other?

Are “media-properties” really different from any other property?

 

Anyway, I won’t judge and study: http://www.comp.hkbu.edu.hk/~cib/2013/Dec/article3/iib_vol14no1_article3.pdf

 

Greetings Michel

 

 

Dr Michel Böhms
Senior Scientist
Future Data: Semantic,Linked,Open & Big

T  +31888663107
M +31630381220
[hidden email]

Location

 

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages.

 

 

From: protege-user [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Csongor Nyulas
Sent: 24 May 2016 21:29
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [protege-user] Compatibility between MOWL and Webprotégé

 

Hi Zuri,

The link you provided is not working for me, but I looked in the biblography cited for the wiki page on MOWL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_Web_Ontology_Language) and it seems that MOWL is not an extension of OWL, and is not even based on Description Logic, so without knowing too much about MOWL, I would say that you you can't load or edit a MOWL ontology in WebProtege (or Protege Desktop). I suppose there must be specialized editors for it, or maybe you would just use a text editor to edit it.

In case you don't get more informed answers from others on this mailing list, I would recommend you to contact the authors of those papers, maybe subscribe to a mailing list that they run, to find out more about editing MOWL ontologies.

Csongor

On 05/24/2016 02:39 AM, Zuriñe Piña Landaburu wrote:

Good morning to all:

 

I woul like to know if there is possible to have compatibility between  a new ontology language, Multimedia Web Ontology Language (MOWL), and Webprotégé. It's a new language, based on OWL, and has been created to represent multimedia knowledge in ontologies. Here you can see more information:

 

 

Thank you very much,

 

Zuri




_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user

 


_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compatibility between MOWL and Webprotégé

Zuriñe Piña Landaburu
In reply to this post by Csongor Nyulas

Hi Csongor,

Thank you very much for your answer. I am going to write to the authors to have more information. I hope that maybe this new information can help you to keep on working with Protégé.

Cheers,

Zuri


El 24/5/2016 21:29, "Csongor Nyulas" <[hidden email]> escribió:
Hi Zuri,

The link you provided is not working for me, but I looked in the biblography cited for the wiki page on MOWL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_Web_Ontology_Language) and it seems that MOWL is not an extension of OWL, and is not even based on Description Logic, so without knowing too much about MOWL, I would say that you you can't load or edit a MOWL ontology in WebProtege (or Protege Desktop). I suppose there must be specialized editors for it, or maybe you would just use a text editor to edit it.

In case you don't get more informed answers from others on this mailing list, I would recommend you to contact the authors of those papers, maybe subscribe to a mailing list that they run, to find out more about editing MOWL ontologies.

Csongor


On 05/24/2016 02:39 AM, Zuriñe Piña Landaburu wrote:
Good morning to all:

I woul like to know if there is possible to have compatibility between  a new ontology language, Multimedia Web Ontology Language (MOWL), and Webprotégé. It's a new language, based on OWL, and has been created to represent multimedia knowledge in ontologies. Here you can see more information:


Thank you very much,

Zuri


_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user


_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user


_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compatibility between MOWL and Webprotégé

Zuriñe Piña Landaburu
In reply to this post by Bohms, H.M. (Michel)

Hi Michel,

Thank you very much for your interest. Indeed I have more questions than answers, but I am going to write to the developers of this project, so I hope to be able to answer you soon. If you want, we can keep the contact and I will write you when I have an answer.

Cheers,

Zuri

El 25/5/2016 9:37, "Bohms, H.M. (Michel)" <[hidden email]> escribió:

Hi Zuri,

 

The idea of a (potential) difference between a conceptual model and a perceptual model is interesting.

So far however more questions for me than answersJ:

Is the split really useful? Or are those two interpretations always entangled?

Even if so, do you really need another language for the one and the other?

Are “media-properties” really different from any other property?

 

Anyway, I won’t judge and study: http://www.comp.hkbu.edu.hk/~cib/2013/Dec/article3/iib_vol14no1_article3.pdf

 

Greetings Michel

 

 

Dr Michel Böhms
Senior Scientist
Future Data: Semantic,Linked,Open & Big

T  <a href="tel:%2B31888663107" value="+31888663107" target="_blank">+31888663107
M <a href="tel:%2B31630381220" value="+31630381220" target="_blank">+31630381220
[hidden email]

Location

 

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages.

 

 

From: protege-user [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Csongor Nyulas
Sent: 24 May 2016 21:29
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [protege-user] Compatibility between MOWL and Webprotégé

 

Hi Zuri,

The link you provided is not working for me, but I looked in the biblography cited for the wiki page on MOWL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_Web_Ontology_Language) and it seems that MOWL is not an extension of OWL, and is not even based on Description Logic, so without knowing too much about MOWL, I would say that you you can't load or edit a MOWL ontology in WebProtege (or Protege Desktop). I suppose there must be specialized editors for it, or maybe you would just use a text editor to edit it.

In case you don't get more informed answers from others on this mailing list, I would recommend you to contact the authors of those papers, maybe subscribe to a mailing list that they run, to find out more about editing MOWL ontologies.

Csongor

On 05/24/2016 02:39 AM, Zuriñe Piña Landaburu wrote:

Good morning to all:

 

I woul like to know if there is possible to have compatibility between  a new ontology language, Multimedia Web Ontology Language (MOWL), and Webprotégé. It's a new language, based on OWL, and has been created to represent multimedia knowledge in ontologies. Here you can see more information:

 

 

Thank you very much,

 

Zuri




_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user

 


_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user


_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user