advice on adding info to other people's ontology

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

advice on adding info to other people's ontology

Bohms, H.M. (Michel)

 

In my ontologies I want to reuse the hasPart property of Dublin core. I want to use it as an object property so I add in my ontologies (via a common import) the triple:

 

 

<http://purl.org/dc/terms#hasPart>

      rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty .

 

Some collegues suggest this is not allowed since I have no right to add info to other people’s ontologies. They say such a triple has to be defined/poublished at purl…

 

Personally I thought (or was it hoped) that this flexible adding knowledge to other know;edge in my own name space is one of the key features of the semantic web….

 

Please advice, thx Michel

 




Dit bericht kan informatie bevatten die niet voor u is bestemd. Indien u niet de geadresseerde bent of dit bericht abusievelijk aan u is toegezonden, wordt u verzocht dat aan de afzender te melden en het bericht te verwijderen. TNO aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor de inhoud van deze e-mail, de wijze waarop u deze gebruikt en voor schade, van welke aard ook, die verband houdt met risico's verbonden aan het elektronisch verzenden van berichten.

 

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.


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

Re: advice on adding info to other people's ontology

Ron Rudnicki

But flexibility shouldn’t come at the cost of interoperability. Changing the type or content of an existing class or property and re-using it as though it were the same has the effect of causing  queries and reasoning to have unexpected results.

 

If this is something you really need to do (treat hasPart as an owl:ObjectProperty rather than a rdf:property, correct?) then I’d advise creating a new property op_hasPart (or whatever you choose to name it) and making that property a subproperty of the Dublin Core property.

 

From: protege-user [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Bohms, H.M. (Michel)
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 7:49 AM
To: '[hidden email]'; '[hidden email]'
Subject: [protege-user] advice on adding info to other people's ontology

 

 

In my ontologies I want to reuse the hasPart property of Dublin core. I want to use it as an object property so I add in my ontologies (via a common import) the triple:

 

 

<http://purl.org/dc/terms#hasPart>

      rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty .

 

Some collegues suggest this is not allowed since I have no right to add info to other people’s ontologies. They say such a triple has to be defined/poublished at purl…

 

Personally I thought (or was it hoped) that this flexible adding knowledge to other know;edge in my own name space is one of the key features of the semantic web….

 

Please advice, thx Michel

 




Dit bericht kan informatie bevatten die niet voor u is bestemd. Indien u niet de geadresseerde bent of dit bericht abusievelijk aan u is toegezonden, wordt u verzocht dat aan de afzender te melden en het bericht te verwijderen. TNO aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor de inhoud van deze e-mail, de wijze waarop u deze gebruikt en voor schade, van welke aard ook, die verband houdt met risico's verbonden aan het elektronisch verzenden van berichten.

 

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.


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

Re: advice on adding info to other people's ontology

Joshua TAYLOR
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Ron Rudnicki <[hidden email]> wrote:
> But flexibility shouldn’t come at the cost of interoperability. Changing the
> type or content of an existing class or property and re-using it as though
> it were the same has the effect of causing  queries and reasoning to have
> unexpected results.
>
> If this is something you really need to do (treat hasPart as an
> owl:ObjectProperty rather than a rdf:property, correct?) then I’d advise
> creating a new property op_hasPart (or whatever you choose to name it) and
> making that property a subproperty of the Dublin Core property.

Won't this have just as much a problem for interoperability?  An OWL 2
ontology requires that all the properties be declared, either in the
ontology or in one of its imports.  If you have a property op_hasPart
that's a subproperty of some DC property, then the DC property will
still need to be declared as either an annotation property, a datatype
property, or an object property, and the only one that makes sense
here would be as an object property.  So this doesn't really avoid the
problem.

The real problem here is that the DC vocabulary isn't an OWL ontology,
so it's not really designed for interoperability with OWL ontologies.
The best that one can do is this sort of punning and to say "I'll use
some DC property as an object property, and even though that's not
really the case, the inferences that I draw based on it will still be
useful elsewhere."  It's not a very satisfying solution.

//JT




--
Joshua Taylor, http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~tayloj/
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: advice on adding info to other people's ontology

Joshua TAYLOR
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Joshua TAYLOR <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  If you have a property op_hasPart
> that's a subproperty of some DC property, then the DC property will
> still need to be declared as either an annotation property, a datatype
> property, or an object property, and the only one that makes sense
> here would be as an object property.  So this doesn't really avoid the
> problem.


it is worth noting though, that the documentation about hasPart [1]
says: "This term is intended to be used with non-literal values as
defined in the DCMI Abstract Model
(http://dublincore.org/documents/abstract-model/). As of December
2007, the DCMI Usage Board is seeking a way to express this intention
with a formal range declaration."  It doesn't have a formal range, but
the fact that it's intended to be used with non-literal values at
least means that a declaration as an owl:ObjectProperty won't be too
far from its intended use.  If nothing else, the values it will have
as an object property will be non-literals, so any triples with the
owl:ObjectProperty hasParts will be compatible the rdf:Property
hasPart.

//JT

[1] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-hasPart

--
Joshua Taylor, http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~tayloj/
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: advice on adding info to other people's ontology

Bohms, H.M. (Michel)
Great, so I actually use it in the spirit of.
I'll keep it the way I have it (with the triple added on my side)

Thx Joshua for your clear analysis, Michel

-----Original Message-----
From: protege-user [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Joshua TAYLOR
Sent: dinsdag 29 april 2014 17:19
To: User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop
Subject: Re: [protege-user] advice on adding info to other people's ontology

On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Joshua TAYLOR <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  If you have a property op_hasPart
> that's a subproperty of some DC property, then the DC property will
> still need to be declared as either an annotation property, a datatype
> property, or an object property, and the only one that makes sense
> here would be as an object property.  So this doesn't really avoid the
> problem.


it is worth noting though, that the documentation about hasPart [1]
says: "This term is intended to be used with non-literal values as defined in the DCMI Abstract Model (http://dublincore.org/documents/abstract-model/). As of December 2007, the DCMI Usage Board is seeking a way to express this intention with a formal range declaration."  It doesn't have a formal range, but the fact that it's intended to be used with non-literal values at least means that a declaration as an owl:ObjectProperty won't be too far from its intended use.  If nothing else, the values it will have as an object property will be non-literals, so any triples with the owl:ObjectProperty hasParts will be compatible the rdf:Property hasPart.

//JT

[1] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-hasPart

--
Joshua Taylor, http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~tayloj/ _______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user



Dit bericht kan informatie bevatten die niet voor u is bestemd. Indien u niet de geadresseerde bent of dit bericht abusievelijk aan u is toegezonden, wordt u verzocht dat aan de afzender te melden en het bericht te verwijderen. TNO aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor de inhoud van deze e-mail, de wijze waarop u deze gebruikt en voor schade, van welke aard ook, die verband houdt met risico's verbonden aan het elektronisch verzenden van berichten.

 

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.

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

Re: advice on adding info to other people's ontology

Bohms, H.M. (Michel)
Hi Lieke

Thx for your mail because I think it's an important issue that should be fully clear.

Note that I had no intention to add triples to someone else's name space as you suggest.
I import the other (dc) name space and add the extra triple to my OWN name space.

So I think this is technically fine but has impact on exact reuse and thereby interoperability (since others might import the same name space and add nothing...).

But this negative effect is not that big in this case because what I add was actually the intention as Joshua explained.

But again, feedback on this reasoning is still very welcome to get the issue fully clear,
Gr Michel

Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Bohms
Sr. Research Scientist
Structural Reliability
T +31 (0)88 866 31 07
M +31 (0)63 038 12 20
E [hidden email]

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.

-----Original Message-----
From: Lieke Verhelst [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: woensdag 30 april 2014 10:41
To: Bohms, H.M. (Michel); [hidden email]; 'User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop'
Subject: RE: [protege-user] advice on adding info to other people's ontology

Hi all,

Adding statements to an entity from a namespace that is not yours the way Michel suggests is saying things about someone else's  things like you were that other party.  It is assuming that this is technically possible. ( It isn't, because you cannot publish the statement in someone else's namespace since it is on someone else's server.) The editors allow it but imho this type of practice must be avoided because it causes unexpected results, just like Ron says. I haven't checked but hopefully reasoners act on the real origin of statements on the web and ignore the statements about remote namespaces that are locally declared.

Of course it is perfectly fine to add statements in your own namespace that say something about someone else's entities.


Best, Lieke
Linked Data Factory
Semantic web and Linked Data Services
The Netherlands

-----Original Message-----
From: Bohms, H.M. (Michel) [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 29 April 2014 19:11
To: '[hidden email]'; 'User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop'
Cc: 'Lieke Verhelst'
Subject: RE: [protege-user] advice on adding info to other people's ontology

Great, so I actually use it in the spirit of.
I'll keep it the way I have it (with the triple added on my side)

Thx Joshua for your clear analysis, Michel

-----Original Message-----
From: protege-user [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Joshua TAYLOR
Sent: dinsdag 29 april 2014 17:19
To: User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop
Subject: Re: [protege-user] advice on adding info to other people's ontology

On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Joshua TAYLOR <[hidden email]>
wrote:
>  If you have a property op_hasPart
> that's a subproperty of some DC property, then the DC property will
> still need to be declared as either an annotation property, a datatype
> property, or an object property, and the only one that makes sense
> here would be as an object property.  So this doesn't really avoid the
> problem.


it is worth noting though, that the documentation about hasPart [1]
says: "This term is intended to be used with non-literal values as defined in the DCMI Abstract Model (http://dublincore.org/documents/abstract-model/). As of December 2007, the DCMI Usage Board is seeking a way to express this intention with a formal range declaration."  It doesn't have a formal range, but the fact that it's intended to be used with non-literal values at least means that a declaration as an owl:ObjectProperty won't be too far from its intended use.
If nothing else, the values it will have as an object property will be non-literals, so any triples with the owl:ObjectProperty hasParts will be compatible the rdf:Property hasPart.

//JT

[1] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-hasPart

--
Joshua Taylor, http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~tayloj/ _______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user



Dit bericht kan informatie bevatten die niet voor u is bestemd. Indien u niet de geadresseerde bent of dit bericht abusievelijk aan u is toegezonden, wordt u verzocht dat aan de afzender te melden en het bericht te verwijderen. TNO aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor de inhoud van deze e-mail, de wijze waarop u deze gebruikt en voor schade, van welke aard ook, die verband houdt met risico's verbonden aan het elektronisch verzenden van berichten.

 

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.



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