annoattion modelling question

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

annoattion modelling question

Bohms, H.M. (Michel)

I posted also in semanticweb.com but no feedback yet. Guess software dev. might also know the answer since they have to implement the annotations….

My question is:

In the structural spec of OWL2 in ch10 there are two UML diagrams. In the first (fig22) the annotation value is attached to "Annotation", in the next (fig23) it is attached to Annotation Assertion. Can someone explain these double (and as it seems non-optional) values. I would expect that the assignment of value is made only once (or: to the property and that that combination is asserted for a class, or: at the same time as the assertion, or both possibilities but then I would not expect non-optionality…).

thx, 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
[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.

 


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

Re: annoattion modelling question

Csongor Nyulas-2
Administrator
Hi Micheal,
Maybe I missed something, but I don't see any problems here.

Fig 22 says that an "Annotation" has exactly one annotation property and exactly one annotation value. Optionally it may have multiple annotations attached to it through the "annotationAnnotation" property.

Fig 23 say that an "AnnotationAssertion" has exactly one annotation subject, exactly on annotation property, and exactly one annotation value. There is nothing optional here.

I don't see any problem in the fact that both "Annotation" and "AnnotationAssertion" uses "annotationValue" association to specify the value of the annotation/annotation assertion. It is just like two different classes, let's say "Company" and "University", having associated a class "Person" through the same property called "employee".
The cardinality of the "annotationValue" association is specified individually and it happens to be 1 in both cases. So, it is not optional.

Csongor

On 07/15/2014 01:52 AM, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote:

I posted also in semanticweb.com but no feedback yet. Guess software dev. might also know the answer since they have to implement the annotations….

My question is:

In the structural spec of OWL2 in ch10 there are two UML diagrams. In the first (fig22) the annotation value is attached to "Annotation", in the next (fig23) it is attached to Annotation Assertion. Can someone explain these double (and as it seems non-optional) values. I would expect that the assignment of value is made only once (or: to the property and that that combination is asserted for a class, or: at the same time as the assertion, or both possibilities but then I would not expect non-optionality…).

thx, 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
[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.

 



_______________________________________________
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: annoattion modelling question

Bohms, H.M. (Michel)

The fact that both are non-optional is exactly my issue. What is the meaning of BOTH values ate the same time.

Normally you define one annotation value which could be attached to the annotationproperty and then this valued annotationproperty is attached to say a class. Or you attaché annotation property and value separate to the class. My issue is: typically you would choose, not do both at same time….

 

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
[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: woensdag 16 juli 2014 0:57
To: User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop
Subject: Re: [protege-user] annoattion modelling question

 

Hi Micheal,
Maybe I missed something, but I don't see any problems here.

Fig 22 says that an "Annotation" has exactly one annotation property and exactly one annotation value. Optionally it may have multiple annotations attached to it through the "annotationAnnotation" property.

Fig 23 say that an "AnnotationAssertion" has exactly one annotation subject, exactly on annotation property, and exactly one annotation value. There is nothing optional here.

I don't see any problem in the fact that both "Annotation" and "AnnotationAssertion" uses "annotationValue" association to specify the value of the annotation/annotation assertion. It is just like two different classes, let's say "Company" and "University", having associated a class "Person" through the same property called "employee".
The cardinality of the "annotationValue" association is specified individually and it happens to be 1 in both cases. So, it is not optional.

Csongor

On 07/15/2014 01:52 AM, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote:

I posted also in semanticweb.com but no feedback yet. Guess software dev. might also know the answer since they have to implement the annotations….

My question is:

In the structural spec of OWL2 in ch10 there are two UML diagrams. In the first (fig22) the annotation value is attached to "Annotation", in the next (fig23) it is attached to Annotation Assertion. Can someone explain these double (and as it seems non-optional) values. I would expect that the assignment of value is made only once (or: to the property and that that combination is asserted for a class, or: at the same time as the assertion, or both possibilities but then I would not expect non-optionality…).

thx, 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
[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.

 




_______________________________________________
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: annoattion modelling question

Csongor Nyulas-2
Administrator
Hi Michel,
What do you mean by "BOTH values at the same time"? Can you give a concrete example?
Please note that "annotationValue" is associated once with the class "Annotation" (Fig 22), and once with the class "AnnotationAssertion" (Fig 23). Those are two different concepts.

The UML class diagrams just try to visualize a subset of the grammar. Maybe reading the BNF notation, instead of looking at the diagrams, would clarify the intended meaning.

Csongor

On 07/15/2014 11:30 PM, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote:

The fact that both are non-optional is exactly my issue. What is the meaning of BOTH values ate the same time.

Normally you define one annotation value which could be attached to the annotationproperty and then this valued annotationproperty is attached to say a class. Or you attaché annotation property and value separate to the class. My issue is: typically you would choose, not do both at same time….

 

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
[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 [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Csongor Nyulas
Sent: woensdag 16 juli 2014 0:57
To: User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop
Subject: Re: [protege-user] annoattion modelling question

 

Hi Micheal,
Maybe I missed something, but I don't see any problems here.

Fig 22 says that an "Annotation" has exactly one annotation property and exactly one annotation value. Optionally it may have multiple annotations attached to it through the "annotationAnnotation" property.

Fig 23 say that an "AnnotationAssertion" has exactly one annotation subject, exactly on annotation property, and exactly one annotation value. There is nothing optional here.

I don't see any problem in the fact that both "Annotation" and "AnnotationAssertion" uses "annotationValue" association to specify the value of the annotation/annotation assertion. It is just like two different classes, let's say "Company" and "University", having associated a class "Person" through the same property called "employee".
The cardinality of the "annotationValue" association is specified individually and it happens to be 1 in both cases. So, it is not optional.

Csongor

On 07/15/2014 01:52 AM, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote:

I posted also in semanticweb.com but no feedback yet. Guess software dev. might also know the answer since they have to implement the annotations….

My question is:

In the structural spec of OWL2 in ch10 there are two UML diagrams. In the first (fig22) the annotation value is attached to "Annotation", in the next (fig23) it is attached to Annotation Assertion. Can someone explain these double (and as it seems non-optional) values. I would expect that the assignment of value is made only once (or: to the property and that that combination is asserted for a class, or: at the same time as the assertion, or both possibilities but then I would not expect non-optionality…).

thx, 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
[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.

 




_______________________________________________
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: annoattion modelling question

Bohms, H.M. (Michel)

The BNF is equivalent to the UML (and I have the same issue with it).

 

Suppose I have a simple example:

 

Class Bridge

               Skos:definition := “ Abridge is a spanning,…water…etc.”

 

 

Should I now use “Annotation” plus “AnnotationAssertion “ or “AnnotationAssertion” to describe this?

 

(ie 10.2.1 +10.2.2 or 10.2.2 only)

 

I certainly need, I think, 10.2.2 to attach it to “Bridge” using AnnoatationAssertion/AnnotationSubject.

But where to put the vale “A bridge..”?

If also at 10.2.2: AnnotationAssertion/AnnotationValue…then ok…

But I could also use 10.2.1 Annotation/AnnotationValue……but then it is double because I also need a value at 10.2.2….

 

Hmmm, I must oversee something, probably another intended semantics of the 2 values that don’t bite each other…

 

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
[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: Csongor Nyulas [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: woensdag 16 juli 2014 8:59
To: Bohms, H.M. (Michel); [hidden email]; User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop
Subject: Re: [protege-user] annoattion modelling question

 

Hi Michel,
What do you mean by "BOTH values at the same time"? Can you give a concrete example?
Please note that "annotationValue" is associated once with the class "Annotation" (Fig 22), and once with the class "AnnotationAssertion" (Fig 23). Those are two different concepts.

The UML class diagrams just try to visualize a subset of the grammar. Maybe reading the BNF notation, instead of looking at the diagrams, would clarify the intended meaning.

Csongor

On 07/15/2014 11:30 PM, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote:

The fact that both are non-optional is exactly my issue. What is the meaning of BOTH values ate the same time.

Normally you define one annotation value which could be attached to the annotationproperty and then this valued annotationproperty is attached to say a class. Or you attaché annotation property and value separate to the class. My issue is: typically you would choose, not do both at same time….

 

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
[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 [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Csongor Nyulas
Sent: woensdag 16 juli 2014 0:57
To: User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop
Subject: Re: [protege-user] annoattion modelling question

 

Hi Micheal,
Maybe I missed something, but I don't see any problems here.

Fig 22 says that an "Annotation" has exactly one annotation property and exactly one annotation value. Optionally it may have multiple annotations attached to it through the "annotationAnnotation" property.

Fig 23 say that an "AnnotationAssertion" has exactly one annotation subject, exactly on annotation property, and exactly one annotation value. There is nothing optional here.

I don't see any problem in the fact that both "Annotation" and "AnnotationAssertion" uses "annotationValue" association to specify the value of the annotation/annotation assertion. It is just like two different classes, let's say "Company" and "University", having associated a class "Person" through the same property called "employee".
The cardinality of the "annotationValue" association is specified individually and it happens to be 1 in both cases. So, it is not optional.

Csongor

On 07/15/2014 01:52 AM, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote:

I posted also in semanticweb.com but no feedback yet. Guess software dev. might also know the answer since they have to implement the annotations….

My question is:

In the structural spec of OWL2 in ch10 there are two UML diagrams. In the first (fig22) the annotation value is attached to "Annotation", in the next (fig23) it is attached to Annotation Assertion. Can someone explain these double (and as it seems non-optional) values. I would expect that the assignment of value is made only once (or: to the property and that that combination is asserted for a class, or: at the same time as the assertion, or both possibilities but then I would not expect non-optionality…).

thx, 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
[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.

 





_______________________________________________
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: annoattion modelling question

Csongor Nyulas-2
Administrator
Hi Michel,

In your example you should use AnnotationAssertion, because you want to add an annotation on the class "Bridge". See the attached ontologies: ann1_func.owl, ann1_man.owl and ann1_rdf.owl for how this looks written in different syntaxes.

"Annotation" would be used to annotate any given axiom in your ontology. For example in the attached ann2_func.owl you can see that the axiom declaring the class Bridge was itself annotated. In general,
"Annotation" can be used to annotate not only any arbitrary axiom, but other annotations and the ontology itself as well.

Reading the "General Definitions" section of the spec [1] was very helpful for me to see how "Annotation" can be used.

Another way of thinking about the difference between "Annotation" and "AnnotationAssertion", is that "AnnotationAssertion" is used to annotate some concrete entity in your ontology (an IRI, an anonymous individual, or a literal), while "Annotation" is used to annotate something more abstract, like an axiom in your ontology, another annotation, or the ontology as a whole. For example, "AnnotationAssertion" can be used to add a definition to the class Bridge, while "Annotation" can be used to add information about the provenance for the previous annotation, or for the declaration of the class Bridge.

Csongor

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/#General_Definitions

On 07/16/2014 12:40 AM, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote:

The BNF is equivalent to the UML (and I have the same issue with it).

 

Suppose I have a simple example:

 

Class Bridge

               Skos:definition := “ Abridge is a spanning,…water…etc.”

 

 

Should I now use “Annotation” plus “AnnotationAssertion “ or “AnnotationAssertion” to describe this?

 

(ie 10.2.1 +10.2.2 or 10.2.2 only)

 

I certainly need, I think, 10.2.2 to attach it to “Bridge” using AnnoatationAssertion/AnnotationSubject.

But where to put the vale “A bridge..”?

If also at 10.2.2: AnnotationAssertion/AnnotationValue…then ok…

But I could also use 10.2.1 Annotation/AnnotationValue……but then it is double because I also need a value at 10.2.2….

 

Hmmm, I must oversee something, probably another intended semantics of the 2 values that don’t bite each other…

 

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
[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: Csongor Nyulas [[hidden email]]
Sent: woensdag 16 juli 2014 8:59
To: Bohms, H.M. (Michel); [hidden email]; User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop
Subject: Re: [protege-user] annoattion modelling question

 

Hi Michel,
What do you mean by "BOTH values at the same time"? Can you give a concrete example?
Please note that "annotationValue" is associated once with the class "Annotation" (Fig 22), and once with the class "AnnotationAssertion" (Fig 23). Those are two different concepts.

The UML class diagrams just try to visualize a subset of the grammar. Maybe reading the BNF notation, instead of looking at the diagrams, would clarify the intended meaning.

Csongor

On 07/15/2014 11:30 PM, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote:

The fact that both are non-optional is exactly my issue. What is the meaning of BOTH values ate the same time.

Normally you define one annotation value which could be attached to the annotationproperty and then this valued annotationproperty is attached to say a class. Or you attaché annotation property and value separate to the class. My issue is: typically you would choose, not do both at same time….

 

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
[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 [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Csongor Nyulas
Sent: woensdag 16 juli 2014 0:57
To: User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop
Subject: Re: [protege-user] annoattion modelling question

 

Hi Micheal,
Maybe I missed something, but I don't see any problems here.

Fig 22 says that an "Annotation" has exactly one annotation property and exactly one annotation value. Optionally it may have multiple annotations attached to it through the "annotationAnnotation" property.

Fig 23 say that an "AnnotationAssertion" has exactly one annotation subject, exactly on annotation property, and exactly one annotation value. There is nothing optional here.

I don't see any problem in the fact that both "Annotation" and "AnnotationAssertion" uses "annotationValue" association to specify the value of the annotation/annotation assertion. It is just like two different classes, let's say "Company" and "University", having associated a class "Person" through the same property called "employee".
The cardinality of the "annotationValue" association is specified individually and it happens to be 1 in both cases. So, it is not optional.

Csongor

On 07/15/2014 01:52 AM, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote:

I posted also in semanticweb.com but no feedback yet. Guess software dev. might also know the answer since they have to implement the annotations….

My question is:

In the structural spec of OWL2 in ch10 there are two UML diagrams. In the first (fig22) the annotation value is attached to "Annotation", in the next (fig23) it is attached to Annotation Assertion. Can someone explain these double (and as it seems non-optional) values. I would expect that the assignment of value is made only once (or: to the property and that that combination is asserted for a class, or: at the same time as the assertion, or both possibilities but then I would not expect non-optionality…).

thx, 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
[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.

 





_______________________________________________
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

ann1_func.owl (748 bytes) Download Attachment
ann1_man.owl (842 bytes) Download Attachment
ann1_rdf.owl (1K) Download Attachment
ann2_func.owl (854 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: annoattion modelling question

Bohms, H.M. (Michel)

Thx for your extensive answer,

Unfortunately I think I got a clashing answer from semanticweb.com:

See answer of “signified”.

 

Based on that the conclusion was (well at least I assumed): use “Annotation”. Because you attach the annotation to class/properties etc.  via the meta-relations

 

“axiomAnnotations”  in:

 

 

 

Signified said:

 

Anyways, in terms of the production, there are two things going on.


First is the annotation of axioms: axiomAnnotations (or simply "Annotation"). For example:

SubClassOf := 'SubClassOf' '(' axiomAnnotations subClassExpression superClassExpression ')'

or annotation of ontology:

ontologyAnnotations := { Annotation }

and so on. This uses the following production:

axiomAnnotations := { Annotation }

Annotation := 'Annotation' '(' annotationAnnotations AnnotationProperty AnnotationValue ')'

annotationAnnotations  := { Annotation }

So an annotation refers to attaching annotation properties and annotation values in a nested way to axioms, ontologies, etc. (i.e., the subject is already known).


The second is annotation triples or axioms about annotations (or simply "Annotation Assertion").

  AnnotationAxiom := AnnotationAssertion | SubAnnotationPropertyOf | AnnotationPropertyDomain | AnnotationPropertyRange

 

  AnnotationAssertion := 'AnnotationAssertion' '(' axiomAnnotations AnnotationProperty AnnotationSubject AnnotationValue ')'

Since annotation assertions are not nested, their subject needs to be specified.

SubAnnotationPropertyOfAnnotationPropertyDomainAnnotationPropertyRange, etc. are axioms about annotations.


So ...

In the first (fig22) the annotaion value is atached to "Annotation", in the next (fig23) it is attached to Annotation Assertion. Can someone explain these double (and as it seems non-optional) values.

"Annotation" refers to a nested annotation (e.g., nested in an axiom) where the subject is thus already given.

"Annotation Assertion" refers to an annotation triple where the subject must be given, or to full axioms about annotations.

 

 

 

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
[hidden email]

Location

 

cid:image001.gif@01CFA1CB.6D8A7FE0

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: Csongor Nyulas [[hidden email]]
Sent: donderdag 17 juli 2014 3:56
To: Bohms, H.M. (Michel); [hidden email]; User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop
Subject: Re: [protege-user] annoattion modelling question

 

Hi Michel,

In your example you should use AnnotationAssertion, because you want to add an annotation on the class "Bridge". See the attached ontologies: ann1_func.owl, ann1_man.owl and ann1_rdf.owl for how this looks written in different syntaxes.

"Annotation" would be used to annotate any given axiom in your ontology. For example in the attached ann2_func.owl you can see that the axiom declaring the class Bridge was itself annotated. In general,
"Annotation" can be used to annotate not only any arbitrary axiom, but other annotations and the ontology itself as well.

Reading the "General Definitions" section of the spec [1] was very helpful for me to see how "Annotation" can be used.

Another way of thinking about the difference between "Annotation" and "AnnotationAssertion", is that "AnnotationAssertion" is used to annotate some concrete entity in your ontology (an IRI, an anonymous individual, or a literal), while "Annotation" is used to annotate something more abstract, like an axiom in your ontology, another annotation, or the ontology as a whole. For example, "AnnotationAssertion" can be used to add a definition to the class Bridge, while "Annotation" can be used to add information about the provenance for the previous annotation, or for the declaration of the class Bridge.

Csongor

[1]
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/#General_Definitions

On 07/16/2014 12:40 AM, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote:

The BNF is equivalent to the UML (and I have the same issue with it).

 

Suppose I have a simple example:

 

Class Bridge

               Skos:definition := “ Abridge is a spanning,…water…etc.”

 

 

Should I now use “Annotation” plus “AnnotationAssertion “ or “AnnotationAssertion” to describe this?

 

(ie 10.2.1 +10.2.2 or 10.2.2 only)

 

I certainly need, I think, 10.2.2 to attach it to “Bridge” using AnnoatationAssertion/AnnotationSubject.

But where to put the vale “A bridge..”?

If also at 10.2.2: AnnotationAssertion/AnnotationValue…then ok…

But I could also use 10.2.1 Annotation/AnnotationValue……but then it is double because I also need a value at 10.2.2….

 

Hmmm, I must oversee something, probably another intended semantics of the 2 values that don’t bite each other…

 

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
[hidden email]

Location

 

cid:image001.gif@01CFA1CB.6D8A7FE0

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: Csongor Nyulas [[hidden email]]
Sent: woensdag 16 juli 2014 8:59
To: Bohms, H.M. (Michel);
[hidden email]; User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop
Subject: Re: [protege-user] annoattion modelling question

 

Hi Michel,
What do you mean by "BOTH values at the same time"? Can you give a concrete example?
Please note that "annotationValue" is associated once with the class "Annotation" (Fig 22), and once with the class "AnnotationAssertion" (Fig 23). Those are two different concepts.

The UML class diagrams just try to visualize a subset of the grammar. Maybe reading the BNF notation, instead of looking at the diagrams, would clarify the intended meaning.

Csongor

On 07/15/2014 11:30 PM, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote:

The fact that both are non-optional is exactly my issue. What is the meaning of BOTH values ate the same time.

Normally you define one annotation value which could be attached to the annotationproperty and then this valued annotationproperty is attached to say a class. Or you attaché annotation property and value separate to the class. My issue is: typically you would choose, not do both at same time….

 

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
[hidden email]

Location

 

cid:image001.gif@01CFA1CB.6D8A7FE0

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 [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Csongor Nyulas
Sent: woensdag 16 juli 2014 0:57
To: User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop
Subject: Re: [protege-user] annoattion modelling question

 

Hi Micheal,
Maybe I missed something, but I don't see any problems here.

Fig 22 says that an "Annotation" has exactly one annotation property and exactly one annotation value. Optionally it may have multiple annotations attached to it through the "annotationAnnotation" property.

Fig 23 say that an "AnnotationAssertion" has exactly one annotation subject, exactly on annotation property, and exactly one annotation value. There is nothing optional here.

I don't see any problem in the fact that both "Annotation" and "AnnotationAssertion" uses "annotationValue" association to specify the value of the annotation/annotation assertion. It is just like two different classes, let's say "Company" and "University", having associated a class "Person" through the same property called "employee".
The cardinality of the "annotationValue" association is specified individually and it happens to be 1 in both cases. So, it is not optional.

Csongor

On 07/15/2014 01:52 AM, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote:

I posted also in semanticweb.com but no feedback yet. Guess software dev. might also know the answer since they have to implement the annotations….

My question is:

In the structural spec of OWL2 in ch10 there are two UML diagrams. In the first (fig22) the annotation value is attached to "Annotation", in the next (fig23) it is attached to Annotation Assertion. Can someone explain these double (and as it seems non-optional) values. I would expect that the assignment of value is made only once (or: to the property and that that combination is asserted for a class, or: at the same time as the assertion, or both possibilities but then I would not expect non-optionality…).

thx, 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
[hidden email]

Location

 

cid:image001.gif@01CFA1CB.6D8A7FE0

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

 

 

 


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

Re: annoattion modelling question

Csongor Nyulas-2
Administrator
Hi Michel,

I don't think the answers are clashing, but I guess your conclusions from signified's answer are wrong.

'signified' explained that the subject of the annotation in case of "Annotation" and "AnnotationAssertion" are specified in different ways. In case of "Annotation" the subject is the enclosing entity. This is used if you want to annotate an ontology, an axiom, or another annotation.
In case of "AnnotationAssertion" the subject is explicitly specified as an argument (it is noted with "annotationSubject" in Fig 23). This does not contradict my statement that, "AnnotationAssertion" is used when you want to specify an annotation on an entity (class, property or individual) that is identified with an IRI, or if you want to annotate an anonymous individual or literal.

In the example you gave us, I understood that you want to add an annotation to the "Bridge" class itself. At least that what the SKOS:definition with the value “ Abridge is a spanning,…water…etc.” suggested. In this case you would use an AnnotationAssertion. I bet that 'signified' would agree with this if you would ask him. This is also what Protege generates for you.
If you would like to annotate a class declaration axiom, let's say you would like to state that the class declaration axiom for the class Bridge was added to the ontology by "Michel", then you could use an "Annotation" expression within the class declaration statement. Unfortunately Protege cannot show these type of annotations at the moment. However Protege is able to show annotations on the entire ontology, or some other type of axioms (such as subclass axioms), which are also expressed with "Annotation" statements.

Csongor


On 07/17/2014 12:09 PM, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote:

Thx for your extensive answer,

Unfortunately I think I got a clashing answer from semanticweb.com:

See answer of “signified”.

 

Based on that the conclusion was (well at least I assumed): use “Annotation”. Because you attach the annotation to class/properties etc.  via the meta-relations

 

“axiomAnnotations”  in:

 

 

 

Signified said:

 

Anyways, in terms of the production, there are two things going on.


First is the annotation of axioms: axiomAnnotations (or simply "Annotation"). For example:

SubClassOf := 'SubClassOf' '(' axiomAnnotations subClassExpression superClassExpression ')'

or annotation of ontology:

ontologyAnnotations := { Annotation }

and so on. This uses the following production:

axiomAnnotations := { Annotation }

Annotation := 'Annotation' '(' annotationAnnotations AnnotationProperty AnnotationValue ')'

annotationAnnotations  := { Annotation }

So an annotation refers to attaching annotation properties and annotation values in a nested way to axioms, ontologies, etc. (i.e., the subject is already known).


The second is annotation triples or axioms about annotations (or simply "Annotation Assertion").

  AnnotationAxiom := AnnotationAssertion | SubAnnotationPropertyOf | AnnotationPropertyDomain | AnnotationPropertyRange

 

  AnnotationAssertion := 'AnnotationAssertion' '(' axiomAnnotations AnnotationProperty AnnotationSubject AnnotationValue ')'

Since annotation assertions are not nested, their subject needs to be specified.

SubAnnotationPropertyOfAnnotationPropertyDomainAnnotationPropertyRange, etc. are axioms about annotations.


So ...

In the first (fig22) the annotaion value is atached to "Annotation", in the next (fig23) it is attached to Annotation Assertion. Can someone explain these double (and as it seems non-optional) values.

"Annotation" refers to a nested annotation (e.g., nested in an axiom) where the subject is thus already given.

"Annotation Assertion" refers to an annotation triple where the subject must be given, or to full axioms about annotations.

 

 

 

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
[hidden email]

Location

 

imap://csnyulas@csnyulas.pobox.stanford.edu:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E234742?header=quotebody&part=1.2&filename=image001.gif

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: Csongor Nyulas [[hidden email]]
Sent: donderdag 17 juli 2014 3:56
To: Bohms, H.M. (Michel); [hidden email]; User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop
Subject: Re: [protege-user] annoattion modelling question

 

Hi Michel,

In your example you should use AnnotationAssertion, because you want to add an annotation on the class "Bridge". See the attached ontologies: ann1_func.owl, ann1_man.owl and ann1_rdf.owl for how this looks written in different syntaxes.

"Annotation" would be used to annotate any given axiom in your ontology. For example in the attached ann2_func.owl you can see that the axiom declaring the class Bridge was itself annotated. In general,
"Annotation" can be used to annotate not only any arbitrary axiom, but other annotations and the ontology itself as well.

Reading the "General Definitions" section of the spec [1] was very helpful for me to see how "Annotation" can be used.

Another way of thinking about the difference between "Annotation" and "AnnotationAssertion", is that "AnnotationAssertion" is used to annotate some concrete entity in your ontology (an IRI, an anonymous individual, or a literal), while "Annotation" is used to annotate something more abstract, like an axiom in your ontology, another annotation, or the ontology as a whole. For example, "AnnotationAssertion" can be used to add a definition to the class Bridge, while "Annotation" can be used to add information about the provenance for the previous annotation, or for the declaration of the class Bridge.

Csongor

[1]
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/#General_Definitions

On 07/16/2014 12:40 AM, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote:

The BNF is equivalent to the UML (and I have the same issue with it).

 

Suppose I have a simple example:

 

Class Bridge

               Skos:definition := “ Abridge is a spanning,…water…etc.”

 

 

Should I now use “Annotation” plus “AnnotationAssertion “ or “AnnotationAssertion” to describe this?

 

(ie 10.2.1 +10.2.2 or 10.2.2 only)

 

I certainly need, I think, 10.2.2 to attach it to “Bridge” using AnnoatationAssertion/AnnotationSubject.

But where to put the vale “A bridge..”?

If also at 10.2.2: AnnotationAssertion/AnnotationValue…then ok…

But I could also use 10.2.1 Annotation/AnnotationValue……but then it is double because I also need a value at 10.2.2….

 

Hmmm, I must oversee something, probably another intended semantics of the 2 values that don’t bite each other…

 

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
[hidden email]

Location

 

imap://csnyulas@csnyulas.pobox.stanford.edu:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E234742?header=quotebody&part=1.2&filename=image001.gif

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: Csongor Nyulas [[hidden email]]
Sent: woensdag 16 juli 2014 8:59
To: Bohms, H.M. (Michel);
[hidden email]; User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop
Subject: Re: [protege-user] annoattion modelling question

 

Hi Michel,
What do you mean by "BOTH values at the same time"? Can you give a concrete example?
Please note that "annotationValue" is associated once with the class "Annotation" (Fig 22), and once with the class "AnnotationAssertion" (Fig 23). Those are two different concepts.

The UML class diagrams just try to visualize a subset of the grammar. Maybe reading the BNF notation, instead of looking at the diagrams, would clarify the intended meaning.

Csongor

On 07/15/2014 11:30 PM, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote:

The fact that both are non-optional is exactly my issue. What is the meaning of BOTH values ate the same time.

Normally you define one annotation value which could be attached to the annotationproperty and then this valued annotationproperty is attached to say a class. Or you attaché annotation property and value separate to the class. My issue is: typically you would choose, not do both at same time….

 

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
[hidden email]

Location

 

imap://csnyulas@csnyulas.pobox.stanford.edu:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E234742?header=quotebody&part=1.2&filename=image001.gif

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 [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Csongor Nyulas
Sent: woensdag 16 juli 2014 0:57
To: User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop
Subject: Re: [protege-user] annoattion modelling question

 

Hi Micheal,
Maybe I missed something, but I don't see any problems here.

Fig 22 says that an "Annotation" has exactly one annotation property and exactly one annotation value. Optionally it may have multiple annotations attached to it through the "annotationAnnotation" property.

Fig 23 say that an "AnnotationAssertion" has exactly one annotation subject, exactly on annotation property, and exactly one annotation value. There is nothing optional here.

I don't see any problem in the fact that both "Annotation" and "AnnotationAssertion" uses "annotationValue" association to specify the value of the annotation/annotation assertion. It is just like two different classes, let's say "Company" and "University", having associated a class "Person" through the same property called "employee".
The cardinality of the "annotationValue" association is specified individually and it happens to be 1 in both cases. So, it is not optional.

Csongor

On 07/15/2014 01:52 AM, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote:

I posted also in semanticweb.com but no feedback yet. Guess software dev. might also know the answer since they have to implement the annotations….

My question is:

In the structural spec of OWL2 in ch10 there are two UML diagrams. In the first (fig22) the annotation value is attached to "Annotation", in the next (fig23) it is attached to Annotation Assertion. Can someone explain these double (and as it seems non-optional) values. I would expect that the assignment of value is made only once (or: to the property and that that combination is asserted for a class, or: at the same time as the assertion, or both possibilities but then I would not expect non-optionality…).

thx, 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
[hidden email]

Location

 

imap://csnyulas@csnyulas.pobox.stanford.edu:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E234742?header=quotebody&part=1.2&filename=image001.gif

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

 

 

 



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

Re: annoattion modelling question

Bohms, H.M. (Michel)

First of all thanks for your effort/energy to support me, very much appreciated!

See after >

 

From: Csongor Nyulas [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: donderdag 17 juli 2014 23:26
To: Bohms, H.M. (Michel); '[hidden email]'; 'User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop'
Subject: Re: [protege-user] annoattion modelling question

 

Hi Michel,

I don't think the answers are clashing, but I guess your conclusions from signified's answer are wrong.

>that would be great, I want to know where I am wrong


'signified' explained that the subject of the annotation in case of "Annotation" and "AnnotationAssertion" are specified in different ways.
In case of "Annotation" the subject is the enclosing entity. This is used if you want to annotate an ontology, an axiom, or another annotation.

>right, thsi I understand..and I interprete one of these axioms is a Declaration which refers to a Class etc.


In case of "AnnotationAssertion" the subject is explicitly specified as an argument (it is noted with "annotationSubject" in Fig 23).
This does not contradict my statement that, "AnnotationAssertion" is used when you want to specify an annotation on an entity (class, property or individual) that is identified with an IRI, or if you want to annotate an anonymous individual or literal.

>and this is where I dont understand. You say: you use it for an entity…but isn’t this case already covered by the previous?

>Or is class not in this case because it is not a axiom itself but the declaration is REFERRING to an entity like a class…?

 



In the example you gave us, I understood that you want to add an annotation to the "Bridge" class itself.
At least that what the SKOS:definition with the value “ Abridge is a spanning,…water…etc.” suggested. In this case you would use an AnnotationAssertion. I bet that 'signified' would agree with this if you would ask him. This is also what Protege generates for you.

Ø    Ok, Ireasoned: Class is special case of entity is 1:1 to declaration being a subclass of Axiom…so…..I have to use Annotation….

 

 


If you would like to annotate a class declaration axiom, let's say you would like to state that the class declaration axiom for the class Bridge was added to the ontology by "Michel", then you could use an "Annotation" expression within the class declaration statement.
Unfortunately Protege cannot show these type of annotations at the moment. However Protege is able to show annotations on the entire ontology, or some other type of axioms (such as subclass axioms), which are also expressed with "Annotation" statements.

Ø    So “ added my Michel” should be related to the Class Declaration by Annotation, and

Ø    Skos:definition for bridge should be related to the Class “ itself” by AnnotationAssertion

Starting to understand now….. (if this is right)…

 

Thx a lot, Michel

 

 



Csongor

On 07/17/2014 12:09 PM, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote:

Thx for your extensive answer,

Unfortunately I think I got a clashing answer from semanticweb.com:

See answer of “signified”.

 

Based on that the conclusion was (well at least I assumed): use “Annotation”. Because you attach the annotation to class/properties etc.  via the meta-relations

 

“axiomAnnotations”  in:

 

 

 

Signified said:

 

Anyways, in terms of the production, there are two things going on.


First is the annotation of axioms: axiomAnnotations (or simply "Annotation"). For example:

SubClassOf := 'SubClassOf' '(' axiomAnnotations subClassExpression superClassExpression ')'

or annotation of ontology:

ontologyAnnotations := { Annotation }

and so on. This uses the following production:

axiomAnnotations := { Annotation }

Annotation := 'Annotation' '(' annotationAnnotations AnnotationProperty AnnotationValue ')'

annotationAnnotations  := { Annotation }

So an annotation refers to attaching annotation properties and annotation values in a nested way to axioms, ontologies, etc. (i.e., the subject is already known).


The second is annotation triples or axioms about annotations (or simply "Annotation Assertion").

  AnnotationAxiom := AnnotationAssertion | SubAnnotationPropertyOf | AnnotationPropertyDomain | AnnotationPropertyRange

 

  AnnotationAssertion := 'AnnotationAssertion' '(' axiomAnnotations AnnotationProperty AnnotationSubject AnnotationValue ')'

Since annotation assertions are not nested, their subject needs to be specified.

SubAnnotationPropertyOfAnnotationPropertyDomainAnnotationPropertyRange, etc. are axioms about annotations.


So ...

In the first (fig22) the annotaion value is atached to "Annotation", in the next (fig23) it is attached to Annotation Assertion. Can someone explain these double (and as it seems non-optional) values.

"Annotation" refers to a nested annotation (e.g., nested in an axiom) where the subject is thus already given.

"Annotation Assertion" refers to an annotation triple where the subject must be given, or to full axioms about annotations.

 

 

 

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
[hidden email]

Location

 

imap://csnyulas@csnyulas.pobox.stanford.edu:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E234742?header=quotebody&part=1.2&filename=image001.gif

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: Csongor Nyulas [[hidden email]]
Sent: donderdag 17 juli 2014 3:56
To: Bohms, H.M. (Michel); [hidden email]; User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop
Subject: Re: [protege-user] annoattion modelling question

 

Hi Michel,

In your example you should use AnnotationAssertion, because you want to add an annotation on the class "Bridge". See the attached ontologies: ann1_func.owl, ann1_man.owl and ann1_rdf.owl for how this looks written in different syntaxes.

"Annotation" would be used to annotate any given axiom in your ontology. For example in the attached ann2_func.owl you can see that the axiom declaring the class Bridge was itself annotated. In general,
"Annotation" can be used to annotate not only any arbitrary axiom, but other annotations and the ontology itself as well.

Reading the "General Definitions" section of the spec [1] was very helpful for me to see how "Annotation" can be used.

Another way of thinking about the difference between "Annotation" and "AnnotationAssertion", is that "AnnotationAssertion" is used to annotate some concrete entity in your ontology (an IRI, an anonymous individual, or a literal), while "Annotation" is used to annotate something more abstract, like an axiom in your ontology, another annotation, or the ontology as a whole. For example, "AnnotationAssertion" can be used to add a definition to the class Bridge, while "Annotation" can be used to add information about the provenance for the previous annotation, or for the declaration of the class Bridge.

Csongor

[1]
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/#General_Definitions

On 07/16/2014 12:40 AM, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote:

The BNF is equivalent to the UML (and I have the same issue with it).

 

Suppose I have a simple example:

 

Class Bridge

               Skos:definition := “ Abridge is a spanning,…water…etc.”

 

 

Should I now use “Annotation” plus “AnnotationAssertion “ or “AnnotationAssertion” to describe this?

 

(ie 10.2.1 +10.2.2 or 10.2.2 only)

 

I certainly need, I think, 10.2.2 to attach it to “Bridge” using AnnoatationAssertion/AnnotationSubject.

But where to put the vale “A bridge..”?

If also at 10.2.2: AnnotationAssertion/AnnotationValue…then ok…

But I could also use 10.2.1 Annotation/AnnotationValue……but then it is double because I also need a value at 10.2.2….

 

Hmmm, I must oversee something, probably another intended semantics of the 2 values that don’t bite each other…

 

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
[hidden email]

Location

 

imap://csnyulas@csnyulas.pobox.stanford.edu:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E234742?header=quotebody&part=1.2&filename=image001.gif

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: Csongor Nyulas [[hidden email]]
Sent: woensdag 16 juli 2014 8:59
To: Bohms, H.M. (Michel);
[hidden email]; User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop
Subject: Re: [protege-user] annoattion modelling question

 

Hi Michel,
What do you mean by "BOTH values at the same time"? Can you give a concrete example?
Please note that "annotationValue" is associated once with the class "Annotation" (Fig 22), and once with the class "AnnotationAssertion" (Fig 23). Those are two different concepts.

The UML class diagrams just try to visualize a subset of the grammar. Maybe reading the BNF notation, instead of looking at the diagrams, would clarify the intended meaning.

Csongor

On 07/15/2014 11:30 PM, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote:

The fact that both are non-optional is exactly my issue. What is the meaning of BOTH values ate the same time.

Normally you define one annotation value which could be attached to the annotationproperty and then this valued annotationproperty is attached to say a class. Or you attaché annotation property and value separate to the class. My issue is: typically you would choose, not do both at same time….

 

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
[hidden email]

Location

 

imap://csnyulas@csnyulas.pobox.stanford.edu:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E234742?header=quotebody&part=1.2&filename=image001.gif

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 [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Csongor Nyulas
Sent: woensdag 16 juli 2014 0:57
To: User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop
Subject: Re: [protege-user] annoattion modelling question

 

Hi Micheal,
Maybe I missed something, but I don't see any problems here.

Fig 22 says that an "Annotation" has exactly one annotation property and exactly one annotation value. Optionally it may have multiple annotations attached to it through the "annotationAnnotation" property.

Fig 23 say that an "AnnotationAssertion" has exactly one annotation subject, exactly on annotation property, and exactly one annotation value. There is nothing optional here.

I don't see any problem in the fact that both "Annotation" and "AnnotationAssertion" uses "annotationValue" association to specify the value of the annotation/annotation assertion. It is just like two different classes, let's say "Company" and "University", having associated a class "Person" through the same property called "employee".
The cardinality of the "annotationValue" association is specified individually and it happens to be 1 in both cases. So, it is not optional.

Csongor

On 07/15/2014 01:52 AM, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote:

I posted also in semanticweb.com but no feedback yet. Guess software dev. might also know the answer since they have to implement the annotations….

My question is:

In the structural spec of OWL2 in ch10 there are two UML diagrams. In the first (fig22) the annotation value is attached to "Annotation", in the next (fig23) it is attached to Annotation Assertion. Can someone explain these double (and as it seems non-optional) values. I would expect that the assignment of value is made only once (or: to the property and that that combination is asserted for a class, or: at the same time as the assertion, or both possibilities but then I would not expect non-optionality…).

thx, 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
[hidden email]

Location

 

imap://csnyulas@csnyulas.pobox.stanford.edu:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E234742?header=quotebody&part=1.2&filename=image001.gif

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

 

 

 

 


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

Re: annoattion modelling question

Bohms, H.M. (Michel)
In reply to this post by Csongor Nyulas-2

One more: think I just confused the “Class”  with the “ Declaration of a Class” .

Indeed a class itself is no sublclass of an axiom so it will not get the embedding.

 

But then I was wondering, How would that look like in say a turtly serialization?

 

Would you see a difference between an annotation property for a class (say Bridge) for “ skos:definition” (as AnnotationAssertion) and one that is  an instance of an “ Annotation”  like “added by Michel” ?

 

Thx again, Michel

 

From: Csongor Nyulas [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: donderdag 17 juli 2014 23:26
To: Bohms, H.M. (Michel); '[hidden email]'; 'User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop'
Subject: Re: [protege-user] annoattion modelling question

 

Hi Michel,

I don't think the answers are clashing, but I guess your conclusions from signified's answer are wrong.

'signified' explained that the subject of the annotation in case of "Annotation" and "AnnotationAssertion" are specified in different ways. In case of "Annotation" the subject is the enclosing entity. This is used if you want to annotate an ontology, an axiom, or another annotation.
In case of "AnnotationAssertion" the subject is explicitly specified as an argument (it is noted with "annotationSubject" in Fig 23). This does not contradict my statement that, "AnnotationAssertion" is used when you want to specify an annotation on an entity (class, property or individual) that is identified with an IRI, or if you want to annotate an anonymous individual or literal.

In the example you gave us, I understood that you want to add an annotation to the "Bridge" class itself. At least that what the SKOS:definition with the value “ Abridge is a spanning,…water…etc.” suggested. In this case you would use an AnnotationAssertion. I bet that 'signified' would agree with this if you would ask him. This is also what Protege generates for you.
If you would like to annotate a class declaration axiom, let's say you would like to state that the class declaration axiom for the class Bridge was added to the ontology by "Michel", then you could use an "Annotation" expression within the class declaration statement. Unfortunately Protege cannot show these type of annotations at the moment. However Protege is able to show annotations on the entire ontology, or some other type of axioms (such as subclass axioms), which are also expressed with "Annotation" statements.

Csongor

On 07/17/2014 12:09 PM, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote:

Thx for your extensive answer,

Unfortunately I think I got a clashing answer from semanticweb.com:

See answer of “signified”.

 

Based on that the conclusion was (well at least I assumed): use “Annotation”. Because you attach the annotation to class/properties etc.  via the meta-relations

 

“axiomAnnotations”  in:

 

 

 

Signified said:

 

Anyways, in terms of the production, there are two things going on.


First is the annotation of axioms: axiomAnnotations (or simply "Annotation"). For example:

SubClassOf := 'SubClassOf' '(' axiomAnnotations subClassExpression superClassExpression ')'

or annotation of ontology:

ontologyAnnotations := { Annotation }

and so on. This uses the following production:

axiomAnnotations := { Annotation }

Annotation := 'Annotation' '(' annotationAnnotations AnnotationProperty AnnotationValue ')'

annotationAnnotations  := { Annotation }

So an annotation refers to attaching annotation properties and annotation values in a nested way to axioms, ontologies, etc. (i.e., the subject is already known).


The second is annotation triples or axioms about annotations (or simply "Annotation Assertion").

  AnnotationAxiom := AnnotationAssertion | SubAnnotationPropertyOf | AnnotationPropertyDomain | AnnotationPropertyRange

 

  AnnotationAssertion := 'AnnotationAssertion' '(' axiomAnnotations AnnotationProperty AnnotationSubject AnnotationValue ')'

Since annotation assertions are not nested, their subject needs to be specified.

SubAnnotationPropertyOfAnnotationPropertyDomainAnnotationPropertyRange, etc. are axioms about annotations.


So ...

In the first (fig22) the annotaion value is atached to "Annotation", in the next (fig23) it is attached to Annotation Assertion. Can someone explain these double (and as it seems non-optional) values.

"Annotation" refers to a nested annotation (e.g., nested in an axiom) where the subject is thus already given.

"Annotation Assertion" refers to an annotation triple where the subject must be given, or to full axioms about annotations.

 

 

 

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
[hidden email]

Location

 

imap://csnyulas@csnyulas.pobox.stanford.edu:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E234742?header=quotebody&part=1.2&filename=image001.gif

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: Csongor Nyulas [[hidden email]]
Sent: donderdag 17 juli 2014 3:56
To: Bohms, H.M. (Michel); [hidden email]; User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop
Subject: Re: [protege-user] annoattion modelling question

 

Hi Michel,

In your example you should use AnnotationAssertion, because you want to add an annotation on the class "Bridge". See the attached ontologies: ann1_func.owl, ann1_man.owl and ann1_rdf.owl for how this looks written in different syntaxes.

"Annotation" would be used to annotate any given axiom in your ontology. For example in the attached ann2_func.owl you can see that the axiom declaring the class Bridge was itself annotated. In general,
"Annotation" can be used to annotate not only any arbitrary axiom, but other annotations and the ontology itself as well.

Reading the "General Definitions" section of the spec [1] was very helpful for me to see how "Annotation" can be used.

Another way of thinking about the difference between "Annotation" and "AnnotationAssertion", is that "AnnotationAssertion" is used to annotate some concrete entity in your ontology (an IRI, an anonymous individual, or a literal), while "Annotation" is used to annotate something more abstract, like an axiom in your ontology, another annotation, or the ontology as a whole. For example, "AnnotationAssertion" can be used to add a definition to the class Bridge, while "Annotation" can be used to add information about the provenance for the previous annotation, or for the declaration of the class Bridge.

Csongor

[1]
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/#General_Definitions

On 07/16/2014 12:40 AM, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote:

The BNF is equivalent to the UML (and I have the same issue with it).

 

Suppose I have a simple example:

 

Class Bridge

               Skos:definition := “ Abridge is a spanning,…water…etc.”

 

 

Should I now use “Annotation” plus “AnnotationAssertion “ or “AnnotationAssertion” to describe this?

 

(ie 10.2.1 +10.2.2 or 10.2.2 only)

 

I certainly need, I think, 10.2.2 to attach it to “Bridge” using AnnoatationAssertion/AnnotationSubject.

But where to put the vale “A bridge..”?

If also at 10.2.2: AnnotationAssertion/AnnotationValue…then ok…

But I could also use 10.2.1 Annotation/AnnotationValue……but then it is double because I also need a value at 10.2.2….

 

Hmmm, I must oversee something, probably another intended semantics of the 2 values that don’t bite each other…

 

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
[hidden email]

Location

 

imap://csnyulas@csnyulas.pobox.stanford.edu:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E234742?header=quotebody&part=1.2&filename=image001.gif

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: Csongor Nyulas [[hidden email]]
Sent: woensdag 16 juli 2014 8:59
To: Bohms, H.M. (Michel);
[hidden email]; User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop
Subject: Re: [protege-user] annoattion modelling question

 

Hi Michel,
What do you mean by "BOTH values at the same time"? Can you give a concrete example?
Please note that "annotationValue" is associated once with the class "Annotation" (Fig 22), and once with the class "AnnotationAssertion" (Fig 23). Those are two different concepts.

The UML class diagrams just try to visualize a subset of the grammar. Maybe reading the BNF notation, instead of looking at the diagrams, would clarify the intended meaning.

Csongor

On 07/15/2014 11:30 PM, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote:

The fact that both are non-optional is exactly my issue. What is the meaning of BOTH values ate the same time.

Normally you define one annotation value which could be attached to the annotationproperty and then this valued annotationproperty is attached to say a class. Or you attaché annotation property and value separate to the class. My issue is: typically you would choose, not do both at same time….

 

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
[hidden email]

Location

 

imap://csnyulas@csnyulas.pobox.stanford.edu:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E234742?header=quotebody&part=1.2&filename=image001.gif

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 [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Csongor Nyulas
Sent: woensdag 16 juli 2014 0:57
To: User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop
Subject: Re: [protege-user] annoattion modelling question

 

Hi Micheal,
Maybe I missed something, but I don't see any problems here.

Fig 22 says that an "Annotation" has exactly one annotation property and exactly one annotation value. Optionally it may have multiple annotations attached to it through the "annotationAnnotation" property.

Fig 23 say that an "AnnotationAssertion" has exactly one annotation subject, exactly on annotation property, and exactly one annotation value. There is nothing optional here.

I don't see any problem in the fact that both "Annotation" and "AnnotationAssertion" uses "annotationValue" association to specify the value of the annotation/annotation assertion. It is just like two different classes, let's say "Company" and "University", having associated a class "Person" through the same property called "employee".
The cardinality of the "annotationValue" association is specified individually and it happens to be 1 in both cases. So, it is not optional.

Csongor

On 07/15/2014 01:52 AM, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote:

I posted also in semanticweb.com but no feedback yet. Guess software dev. might also know the answer since they have to implement the annotations….

My question is:

In the structural spec of OWL2 in ch10 there are two UML diagrams. In the first (fig22) the annotation value is attached to "Annotation", in the next (fig23) it is attached to Annotation Assertion. Can someone explain these double (and as it seems non-optional) values. I would expect that the assignment of value is made only once (or: to the property and that that combination is asserted for a class, or: at the same time as the assertion, or both possibilities but then I would not expect non-optionality…).

thx, 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
[hidden email]

Location

 

imap://csnyulas@csnyulas.pobox.stanford.edu:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E234742?header=quotebody&part=1.2&filename=image001.gif

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

 

 

 

 


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