From: Øyvind E. <oyv...@ed...> - 2008-10-09 10:59:34
|
Dear all, In just a few weeks time, the TEI Menbers Meeting will be held in London (http://www.cch.kcl.ac.uk/cocoon/tei2008/index.html). Our group will have quite a lot of time to discuss: There will be a panel called "Connecting TEI to External Conceptual Models as a Method for Information Integration" on Thursday, papers in other sessions with relevance to our work, as well as a full day meeting on Saturday. To be able to plan the Saturday meeting, it would be very nice if you could tell me: - Will you be there at the Saturday meeting? - Do you have something you want to present during the meeting? - Are there specific topics you want to discuss? Based on the feed-back, I will set up a preliminary program for the meeting, hopefully next week. -- / Kind regards, / Øyvind Eide, Unit for Digital Documentation, University of Oslo | Postal adr.: P.O. Box 1123 Blindern, N-0317 OSLO, Norway \ Phone: + 47 22 85 49 88 Fax: + 47 22 85 49 83 \ http://www.edd.uio.no/ |
From: Øyvind E. <oyv...@ed...> - 2008-11-05 08:28:39
|
Dear all, The meeting of the Ontologies SIG will be on Saturday November 8 from 9.30 onwards, in room G03. The main topic of the meeting will be to go through TEI and continue to define mappings to CIDOC-CRM, both based on the standard as such and on specific documents compliant to it. Other matters can also be discussed should they arise. If anyone has something they want to discuss, please write an email about it, or just bring it to the meeting. -- / Kind regards, / Øyvind Eide, Unit for Digital Documentation, University of Oslo | Postal adr.: P.O. Box 1123 Blindern, N-0317 OSLO, Norway \ Phone: + 47 22 85 49 88 Fax: + 47 22 85 49 83 \ http://www.edd.uio.no/ |
From: Øyvind E. <oyv...@ed...> - 2008-11-29 00:26:31
|
The minutes from the meeting are now out on the Wiki. I apologise for the delay in publishing them. http://www.tei-c.org/wiki/index.php/SIG:Ontologies Please comment on any mistakes! -- / Kind regards, / Øyvind Eide, Unit for Digital Documentation, University of Oslo | Postal adr.: P.O. Box 1123 Blindern, N-0317 OSLO, Norway \ Phone: + 47 22 85 49 88 Fax: + 47 22 85 49 83 \ http://www.edd.uio.no/ |
From: Sebastian R. <seb...@ou...> - 2008-11-30 22:23:28
|
Following on that very useful session, I have been implementing a conversion to RDF of my example text. This not complete yet, but one part of it may interested people. I wanted to take this summary and make it into RDF: <listPlace> <place xml:id="Cyprus"> <placeName> <region>Cyprus</region> </placeName> </place> </listPlace> <listPerson> <person xml:id="V-65834"> <sex value="1"/> <persName type="full" nymRef="#Zwa1lios"> <forename>???????</forename> </persName> <birth notAfter="-0375" notBefore="-0425"> <placeName key="Cyprus">Cyprus</placeName> </birth> </person> </listPerson> and ended up with this: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" xmlns="http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/rdfs/cidoc_v4.2.rdfs#" xmlns:claros="http://www.claros.net/temporal#" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"> <E53.Place rdf:about="http://clas-lgpn2.classics.ox.ac.uk/placeid/d1e77"> <P87F.is_identified_by> <E44.Place_Appellation> <rdf:value>Cyprus</rdf:value> </E44.Place_Appellation> </P87F.is_identified_by> </E53.Place> <E21.Person rdf:about="http://clas-lgpn2.classics.ox.ac.uk/id/V-65834"> <P131F.is_identified_by> <E82.Actor_Appellation> <rdf:value>???????</rdf:value> </E82.Actor_Appellation> </P131F.is_identified_by> <P98B.was_born> <E67.Birth> <P4F.has_time-span> <E52.Time-Span> <P79F.at_some_time_within> <E61.Time_Primitive> <claros:notBefore rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#gYear">-0425</claros:notBefore> <claros:notAfter rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#gYear">-0375</claros:notAfter> </E61.Time_Primitive> </P79F.at_some_time_within> </E52.Time-Span> </P4F.has_time-span> <P7F.took_place_at rdf:resource="http://clas-lgpn2.classics.ox.ac.uk/placeid/d1e77"/> </E67.Birth> </P98B.was_born> </E21.Person> </rdf:RDF> Notice the critical feature here of having to introduce a new scheme to implement the details of E61 Time Primitive. I'd be interested to see whether others think this is going in the right direction. -- Sebastian Rahtz Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431 Sólo le pido a Dios que el futuro no me sea indiferente |
From: Stuart A. Y. <sy...@gm...> - 2008-11-30 23:17:13
|
Am I right in assuming that most projects would use OWL or some other logic to create more direct/elegant ways of saying that in RDF? cheers stuart On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Sebastian Rahtz <seb...@ou...> wrote: > Following on that very useful session, I have > been implementing a conversion to RDF of my example > text. This not complete yet, but one part of it > may interested people. > > I wanted to take this summary and make it into RDF: > > <listPlace> > <place xml:id="Cyprus"> > <placeName> > <region>Cyprus</region> > </placeName> > </place> > </listPlace> > <listPerson> > > <person xml:id="V-65834"> > <sex value="1"/> > <persName type="full" nymRef="#Zwa1lios"> > <forename>???????</forename> > </persName> > <birth notAfter="-0375" notBefore="-0425"> > <placeName key="Cyprus">Cyprus</placeName> > </birth> > </person> > </listPerson> > > > and ended up with this: > > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> > <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" > xmlns="http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/rdfs/cidoc_v4.2.rdfs#" > xmlns:claros="http://www.claros.net/temporal#" > xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"> > <E53.Place > rdf:about="http://clas-lgpn2.classics.ox.ac.uk/placeid/d1e77"> > <P87F.is_identified_by> > <E44.Place_Appellation> > <rdf:value>Cyprus</rdf:value> > </E44.Place_Appellation> > </P87F.is_identified_by> > </E53.Place> > <E21.Person rdf:about="http://clas-lgpn2.classics.ox.ac.uk/id/V-65834"> > <P131F.is_identified_by> > <E82.Actor_Appellation> > <rdf:value>???????</rdf:value> > </E82.Actor_Appellation> > </P131F.is_identified_by> > <P98B.was_born> > <E67.Birth> > <P4F.has_time-span> > <E52.Time-Span> > <P79F.at_some_time_within> > <E61.Time_Primitive> > <claros:notBefore > rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#gYear">-0425</claros:notBefore> > <claros:notAfter > rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#gYear">-0375</claros:notAfter> > </E61.Time_Primitive> > </P79F.at_some_time_within> > </E52.Time-Span> > </P4F.has_time-span> > <P7F.took_place_at > rdf:resource="http://clas-lgpn2.classics.ox.ac.uk/placeid/d1e77"/> > </E67.Birth> > </P98B.was_born> > </E21.Person> > </rdf:RDF> > > Notice the critical feature here of having to introduce a new > scheme to implement the details of E61 Time Primitive. > > I'd be interested to see whether others think this is going in the > right direction. > > -- > Sebastian Rahtz > Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services > 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431 > > Sólo le pido a Dios > que el futuro no me sea indiferente > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > Tei-ontology-sig mailing list > Tei...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tei-ontology-sig > |
From: Sebastian R. <seb...@ou...> - 2008-11-30 23:50:14
|
Stuart A. Yeates wrote: > Am I right in assuming that most projects would use OWL or some other > logic to create more direct/elegant ways of saying that in RDF? > sorry, I don't get you. OWL provides the equivalent of a schema, surely? how does it help solve the problem of date-range values for an E61? -- Sebastian Rahtz Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431 Sólo le pido a Dios que el futuro no me sea indiferente |
From: Stuart A. Y. <sy...@gm...> - 2008-12-01 00:16:10
|
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Sebastian Rahtz <seb...@ou...> wrote: > Stuart A. Yeates wrote: >> >> Am I right in assuming that most projects would use OWL or some other >> logic to create more direct/elegant ways of saying that in RDF? >> > > sorry, I don't get you. OWL provides the equivalent > of a schema, surely? how does it help solve the problem > of date-range values for an E61? My understanding is that a new (purely synthetic) RDF vocabulary could be introduced and then (using OWL) mapped to the appropriate base vocabularies (cidoc.crm, claros and rdf), as described in: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#OntologyMapping I believe that the synthetic RDF vocabulary could enable (a) the rdf:datatype declaration to be implicit and (b) all the tags to be in the same namespace. I'm not sure whether it could be used to reduce the level of indentation in the example, but i think so... cheers stuart |
From: Sebastian R. <seb...@ou...> - 2008-12-01 08:52:48
|
Stuart A. Yeates wrote: > My understanding is that a new (purely synthetic) RDF vocabulary could > be introduced and then (using OWL) mapped to the appropriate base > vocabularies (cidoc.crm, claros and rdf) ok, I see what you mean now > I believe that the synthetic RDF vocabulary could enable (a) the > rdf:datatype declaration to be implicit and (b) all the tags to be in > the same namespace. > that might be a little elegant, but is there any real advantage? its not as if anyone would want to read or write this by hand. -- Sebastian Rahtz Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431 |
From: Stuart A. Y. <sy...@gm...> - 2008-12-01 09:16:51
|
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Sebastian Rahtz <seb...@ou...> wrote: > Stuart A. Yeates wrote: >> >> My understanding is that a new (purely synthetic) RDF vocabulary could >> be introduced and then (using OWL) mapped to the appropriate base >> vocabularies (cidoc.crm, claros and rdf) > > ok, I see what you mean now >> >> I believe that the synthetic RDF vocabulary could enable (a) the >> rdf:datatype declaration to be implicit and (b) all the tags to be in >> the same namespace. >> > > that might be a little elegant, but is there any > real advantage? There are a whole lot of coding, debugging, hacking, ontology mapping, interoperability and querying functions that are made easier by an easier to understand mapping. I'd _really_ hate to have to write SPARQL queries with the current representation, for example. Even worse would be debugging someone else's SPARQL queries... cheers stuart |
From: Sebastian R. <seb...@ou...> - 2008-12-01 09:42:32
|
Stuart A. Yeates wrote: > There are a whole lot of coding, debugging, hacking, ontology mapping, > interoperability and querying functions that are made easier by an > easier to understand mapping. > leaving aside how to actually _do_ the mapping, what RDF representation of my example would you propose? I'd have said it looks relatively easy to program against in a sustainable way. -- Sebastian Rahtz Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431 |
From: Stuart A. Y. <sy...@gm...> - 2008-12-01 17:52:28
|
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Sebastian Rahtz <seb...@ou...> wrote: > Stuart A. Yeates wrote: >> >> There are a whole lot of coding, debugging, hacking, ontology mapping, >> interoperability and querying functions that are made easier by an >> easier to understand mapping. >> > > leaving aside how to actually _do_ the mapping, > what RDF representation of my example would > you propose? I'd have said it looks relatively easy to > program against in a sustainable way. I was thinking of: <listPlace> <place xml:id="Cyprus"> <placeName> <region>Cyprus</region> </placeName> </place> </listPlace> <listPerson> <person xml:id="V-65834"> <sex value="1"/> <persName type="full" nymRef="#Zwa1lios"> <forename>???????</forename> </persName> <birth notAfter="-0375" notBefore="-0425"> <placeName key="Cyprus">Cyprus</placeName> </birth> </person> </listPerson> mapping to: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" xmlns="http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/rdfs/cidoc_v4.2.rdfs#" xmlns:claros="http://www.claros.net/temporal#" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"> <E53.Place rdf:about="http://clas-lgpn2.classics.ox.ac.uk/placeid/d1e77"> <P87F.is_identified_by> <E44.Place_Appellation> <rdf:value>Cyprus</rdf:value> </E44.Place_Appellation> </P87F.is_identified_by> </E53.Place> <E21.Person rdf:about="http://clas-lgpn2.classics.ox.ac.uk/id/V-65834"> <P131F.is_identified_by> <E82.Actor_Appellation> <rdf:value>???????</rdf:value> </E82.Actor_Appellation> </P131F.is_identified_by> <P98B.was_born> <E67.Birth> <P4F.has_time-span> <E52.Time-Span> <P79F.at_some_time_within> <E61.Time_Primitive> <claros:notBefore rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#gYear">-0425</claros:notBefore> <claros:notAfter rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#gYear">-0375</claros:notAfter> </E61.Time_Primitive> </P79F.at_some_time_within> </E52.Time-Span> </P4F.has_time-span> <P7F.took_place_at rdf:resource="http://clas-lgpn2.classics.ox.ac.uk/placeid/d1e77"/> </E67.Birth> </P98B.was_born> </E21.Person> </rdf:RDF> mapping to: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" xmlns="http://www.example.org/vocabulary" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"> <place rdf:about="http://clas-lgpn2.classics.ox.ac.uk/placeid/d1e77"> <name>Cyprus</name> </place> <person rdf:about="http://clas-lgpn2.classics.ox.ac.uk/id/V-65834"> <name>???????</name> <born> </born> <E21.Person rdf:about="http://clas-lgpn2.classics.ox.ac.uk/id/V-65834"> <P131F.is_identified_by> <E82.Actor_Appellation> <rdf:value>???????</rdf:value> </E82.Actor_Appellation> </P131F.is_identified_by> <P98B.was_born> <E67.Birth> <P4F.has_time-span> <E52.Time-Span> <P79F.at_some_time_within> <E61.Time_Primitive> <claros:notBefore rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#gYear">-0425</claros:notBefore> <claros:notAfter rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#gYear">-0375</claros:notAfter> </E61.Time_Primitive> </P79F.at_some_time_within> </E52.Time-Span> </P4F.has_time-span> <P7F.took_place_at rdf:resource="http://clas-lgpn2.classics.ox.ac.uk/placeid/d1e77"/> </E67.Birth> </P98B.was_born> </E21.Person> </rdf:RDF> |
From: Stuart A. Y. <sy...@gm...> - 2008-12-01 17:56:16
|
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Sebastian Rahtz <seb...@ou...> wrote: > Stuart A. Yeates wrote: >> >> There are a whole lot of coding, debugging, hacking, ontology mapping, >> interoperability and querying functions that are made easier by an >> easier to understand mapping. >> > > leaving aside how to actually _do_ the mapping, > what RDF representation of my example would > you propose? I'd have said it looks relatively easy to > program against in a sustainable way. I was thinking of: <listPlace> <place xml:id="Cyprus"> <placeName> <region>Cyprus</region> </placeName> </place> </listPlace> <listPerson> <person xml:id="V-65834"> <sex value="1"/> <persName type="full" nymRef="#Zwa1lios"> <forename>???????</forename> </persName> <birth notAfter="-0375" notBefore="-0425"> <placeName key="Cyprus">Cyprus</placeName> </birth> </person> </listPerson> mapping to: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" xmlns="http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/rdfs/cidoc_v4.2.rdfs#" xmlns:claros="http://www.claros.net/temporal#" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"> <E53.Place rdf:about="http://clas-lgpn2.classics.ox.ac.uk/placeid/d1e77"> <P87F.is_identified_by> <E44.Place_Appellation> <rdf:value>Cyprus</rdf:value> </E44.Place_Appellation> </P87F.is_identified_by> </E53.Place> <E21.Person rdf:about="http://clas-lgpn2.classics.ox.ac.uk/id/V-65834"> <P131F.is_identified_by> <E82.Actor_Appellation> <rdf:value>???????</rdf:value> </E82.Actor_Appellation> </P131F.is_identified_by> <P98B.was_born> <E67.Birth> <P4F.has_time-span> <E52.Time-Span> <P79F.at_some_time_within> <E61.Time_Primitive> <claros:notBefore rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#gYear">-0425</claros:notBefore> <claros:notAfter rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#gYear">-0375</claros:notAfter> </E61.Time_Primitive> </P79F.at_some_time_within> </E52.Time-Span> </P4F.has_time-span> <P7F.took_place_at rdf:resource="http://clas-lgpn2.classics.ox.ac.uk/placeid/d1e77"/> </E67.Birth> </P98B.was_born> </E21.Person> </rdf:RDF> mapping to: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" xmlns="http://www.example.org/vocabulary" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"> <place rdf:about="http://clas-lgpn2.classics.ox.ac.uk/placeid/d1e77"> <name>Cyprus</name> </place> <person rdf:about="http://clas-lgpn2.classics.ox.ac.uk/id/V-65834"> <name>???????</name> <born> <between> <start> -0425 <start> <end> -0375 <end> </between> </born> <place rdf:resource="http://clas-lgpn2.classics.ox.ac.uk/placeid/d1e77"/> <person> </rdf:RDF> |
From: Sebastian R. <seb...@ou...> - 2008-12-01 18:38:24
|
Stuart A. Yeates wrote: > > <place rdf:about="http://clas-lgpn2.classics.ox.ac.uk/placeid/d1e77"> > <name>Cyprus</name> > </place> > > <person rdf:about="http://clas-lgpn2.classics.ox.ac.uk/id/V-65834"> > <name>???????</name> > <born> > <between> > <start> -0425 <start> > <end> -0375 <end> > </between> > </born> > <place rdf:resource="http://clas-lgpn2.classics.ox.ac.uk/placeid/d1e77"/> > <person> if you're going to do that, why not stick with the original TEI? -- Sebastian Rahtz Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431 Sólo le pido a Dios que el futuro no me sea indiferente |
From: Stuart A. Y. <sy...@gm...> - 2008-12-02 08:08:13
|
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 7:38 AM, Sebastian Rahtz <seb...@ou...> wrote: > Stuart A. Yeates wrote: > >> >> <place rdf:about="http://clas-lgpn2.classics.ox.ac.uk/placeid/d1e77"> >> <name>Cyprus</name> >> </place> >> >> <person rdf:about="http://clas-lgpn2.classics.ox.ac.uk/id/V-65834"> >> <name>???????</name> >> <born> >> <between> >> <start> -0425 <start> >> <end> -0375 <end> >> </between> >> </born> >> <place >> rdf:resource="http://clas-lgpn2.classics.ox.ac.uk/placeid/d1e77"/> >> <person> > > if you're going to do that, why not stick with the original TEI? Because unlike TEI, a TEI-like RDF vocabulary inferred (using OWL) from CIDOC-CRM RDF would: (a) be data-centric rather than document-centric (notions of sequence and document structure are lost if not explicit) (b) allow any tags anywhere (throw away the TEI schema) (c) be a description-logic (well understood computationally) (d) be amenable to the full range of RDF tools, databases and query engines (think SPARQL) (e) have the inter-operation issues with CIDOC-CRM ironed out up-front (because it's syntatic sugar for the underlying CIDOC-CRM) (f) allow arbitrary co-mingling with other RDF vocabularies (such as dc:creator, mets:techMD, frbr:realizer, mods:Description, ...) The lossy nature of (a) means that the TEI document is not recoverable from TEI-like RDF, unless you take inordinate care to include both the full text and header ordering / nesting information in the RDF, which seems unlikely. A TEI-like RDF vocabulary has the advantage (over raw CIDOC-CRM RDF) that practitioners who're already working in TEI can use familiar terms in RDF. They'll have slightly different semantics, but that can't be avoided. You're probably aware that the NZETC uses CIDOC-CRM topic maps (which are like RDF) for essentially all extra-document metadata, including document structure (for page-breaking decisions, navigation, etc), named entities (people, places, organisations, ships, etc, all linked against our authority database), filetypes (pdf, tei, etc) and languages / character encodings (en, mi, latin, SAMPA, etc). We are actively evaluating a move from topic maps to RDF. I should also add that it's been suggested to me out-of-band that we focus on getting he underlying representation right before focusing on the syntatic sugar (as I have a tendency to). In your original mapping Sebastian, both the sex and the nymRef="#Zwa1lios" fell by the wayside. Was this debliberate? cheers stuart |
From: Sebastian R. <seb...@ou...> - 2008-12-02 13:26:39
|
Stuart A. Yeates wrote: > Because unlike TEI, a TEI-like RDF vocabulary inferred (using OWL) > from CIDOC-CRM RDF would: > (a) be data-centric rather than document-centric (notions of sequence > and document structure are lost if not explicit) > thats surely inherent in any work we do. that is to say, we'll model derived data not raw documents. > (f) allow arbitrary co-mingling with other RDF vocabularies (such as > dc:creator, mets:techMD, frbr:realizer, mods:Description, ...) > but you were complaining yesterday when I mixed two vocabularies :-} > A TEI-like RDF vocabulary has the advantage (over raw CIDOC-CRM RDF) > that practitioners who're already working in TEI can use familiar > terms in RDF. They'll have slightly different semantics, but that > can't be avoided. > which sounds like a Bad Thing? > In your original mapping Sebastian, both the sex and the > nymRef="#Zwa1lios" fell by the wayside. Was this debliberate? > yes, because I don't need them for the immediate application. there is a lot else in the actual records which I am not trying to cover in this bit of work. some of you may be interested in some work here, pointed at by http://oxforderewhon.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/rdf-and-the-time-dimension-part-1/, worrying about temporal aspects of RDF. Its not a million miles away from the TEI. -- Sebastian Rahtz Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431 |
From: Stuart A. Y. <sy...@gm...> - 2008-12-03 08:20:17
|
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:26 AM, Sebastian Rahtz <seb...@ou...> wrote: > Stuart A. Yeates wrote: >> >> Because unlike TEI, a TEI-like RDF vocabulary inferred (using OWL) >> from CIDOC-CRM RDF would: >> (a) be data-centric rather than document-centric (notions of sequence >> and document structure are lost if not explicit) > > thats surely inherent in any work we do. that is > to say, we'll model derived data not raw documents. Indeed, but it speaks to your "why not stick with the original TEI?" question. >> (f) allow arbitrary co-mingling with other RDF vocabularies (such as >> dc:creator, mets:techMD, frbr:realizer, mods:Description, ...) >> > > but you were complaining yesterday when I mixed two > vocabularies :-} Mapping TEI to mixed RDF vocabularies is good in that it enables you to reuse preexisting vocabularies (which stop you reinventing the wheel and ease third party reuse) but bad in that the multiple namespaces are confusing for users. Once you have data in RDF, mapping to extra RDF vocabularies is excellent, since this is a huge enabler of interoperability. For example, mapping from the complex CIDOC-CRM notions of authorship to dc:creator, which is _much_ more widely used, both on the web 1.0 and the semantic web. >> A TEI-like RDF vocabulary has the advantage (over raw CIDOC-CRM RDF) >> that practitioners who're already working in TEI can use familiar >> terms in RDF. They'll have slightly different semantics, but that >> can't be avoided. > > which sounds like a Bad Thing? Two things with the same name but different meanings are always going to be a source of confusion. The question is whether they're going to cause more or less confusion than the alternatives. > some of you may be interested in some work here, > pointed at by > http://oxforderewhon.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/rdf-and-the-time-dimension-part-1/, > worrying about temporal aspects of RDF. I'm not sure about this. It seems to confuse incapability of modeling dimensions and lack of direct support for the concept of dimensions. Essentially it glosses over the computer science truism that anything can be achieved through level of indirection. But that's probably off topic for this mailing list. cheers stuart |
From: Richard L. <ri...@li...> - 2008-12-03 13:21:40
|
In message <493...@ou...>, Sebastian Rahtz <seb...@ou...> writes >some of you may be interested in some work here, >pointed at by >http://oxforderewhon.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/rdf-and-the-time-dimension >-part-1/, >worrying about temporal aspects of RDF. Its not a million >miles away from the TEI. Interesting discussion. Your hemispheres/August example seems to me to be a simple case of a conditional fact: IF you are in the Southern Hemisphere, THEN August is a winter month. A quick Google for "rdf conditional" turns up a W3C position paper from 2002: http://www.w3.org/2002/03/semweb/conditional suggesting (a) that this is seen as an actual issue by RDF full-timers and (b) that it hasn't been resolved. This is indeed disappointing for me, when the sort of museum/historical information I am interested in will be littered with statements which are only true in a given context. You mention date ranges: many assertions will only hold within a given range of dates (and that's before you start to worry about uncertainty of dating ...). In addition, assertions may be one person's opinion: the (varying) attribution of art works is a good example. You need to be able to express this sort of context clearly and (ideally) elegantly. It suggests to me that Stuart maybe shouldn't be in too much of a hurry to move away from Topic Maps, which have the notion of Scope built in. This seems much more powerful and elegant to me than named graphs (and is actually part of the relevant standard). Returning to your worked example, I wonder about the effectiveness of the use of CRM for Semantic-Web-queryable RDF. (This may be the same point Stuart has already made about the difficulty of querying your example using e.g. SPARQL. If so, please pardon the repetition.) <aside> I came out with a very similar type of deeply-nested structure when I was asked to map PAS data to BRICKS, and I wondered at the time about how useful that format would be in expressing the semantics of the information. The problem, as I saw it, was that the context of each item of information was specified to the Nth degree as a set of nested CRM elements, but in isolation. This occurred because the PAS-BRICKS mapping was done in an Excel spreadsheet (well, what else would you use to do ontological mapping ;-) ?) one concept at a time. Your example is better, in that e.g. the <E67.Birth> element co-contextualizes the date and place information. Anyway, back to the point ... </aside> If you look at the sort of Linked Data which is coming out of the DBpedia project, you see very simple metadata-like assertions about each entity of interest, i.e. simple RDF triples with no blank nodes: <person X URI> <was-born-in> <birthplace Y URI> . <person X URI> <isa> <person URI> . <person X URI> <was-born-after> "earliest birth date" . <person X URI> <was-born-before> "latest birth date" . This is the sort of stuff that a SPARQL end-point can really get its teeth into. My problem is that the single DBpedia-like property <was-born-in> maps to the chain: <P98B.was_born> <E67.Birth> <P7F.took_place_at> of CRM classes and properties. <was-born-after> maps to: <P98B.was_born> <E67.Birth> <P4F.has_time-span> <E52.Time-Span> <P79F.at_some_time_within> <E61.Time_Primitive> <claros:notBefore> So in what way is the CRM useful for deriving these simpler "short-cut" properties that the Linked Data initiative needs? Richard -- Richard Light |
From: Stuart A. Y. <sy...@gm...> - 2008-12-04 06:29:13
|
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 1:53 AM, Richard Light <ri...@li...> wrote: > In message <493...@ou...>, Sebastian Rahtz > <seb...@ou...> writes > >>some of you may be interested in some work here, >>pointed at by >>http://oxforderewhon.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/rdf-and-the-time-dimension >>-part-1/, >>worrying about temporal aspects of RDF. Its not a million >>miles away from the TEI. > > Interesting discussion. Your hemispheres/August example seems to me to > be a simple case of a conditional fact: IF you are in the Southern > Hemisphere, THEN August is a winter month. A quick Google for "rdf > conditional" turns up a W3C position paper from 2002: > > http://www.w3.org/2002/03/semweb/conditional > > suggesting (a) that this is seen as an actual issue by RDF full-timers > and (b) that it hasn't been resolved. > > This is indeed disappointing for me, when the sort of museum/historical > information I am interested in will be littered with statements which > are only true in a given context. You mention date ranges: many > assertions will only hold within a given range of dates (and that's > before you start to worry about uncertainty of dating ...). In > addition, assertions may be one person's opinion: the (varying) > attribution of art works is a good example. You need to be able to > express this sort of context clearly and (ideally) elegantly. > > It suggests to me that Stuart maybe shouldn't be in too much of a hurry > to move away from Topic Maps, which have the notion of Scope built in. > This seems much more powerful and elegant to me than named graphs (and > is actually part of the relevant standard). My understanding is that we only use scope for the language of labels (I've not looked at the i18n of RDF yet), so he inability inconsistent data isn't much of an issue or us, as I understand it. I'm sure my colleagues will jump on in if I'm wrong about this. > If you look at the sort of Linked Data which is coming out of the > DBpedia project, you see very simple metadata-like assertions about each > entity of interest, i.e. simple RDF triples with no blank nodes: > > <person X URI> <was-born-in> <birthplace Y URI> . > <person X URI> <isa> <person URI> . > <person X URI> <was-born-after> "earliest birth date" . > <person X URI> <was-born-before> "latest birth date" . > > This is the sort of stuff that a SPARQL end-point can really get its > teeth into. > > My problem is that the single DBpedia-like property <was-born-in> maps > to the chain: > > <P98B.was_born> <E67.Birth> <P7F.took_place_at> > > of CRM classes and properties. <was-born-after> maps to: > > <P98B.was_born> <E67.Birth> <P4F.has_time-span> <E52.Time-Span> > <P79F.at_some_time_within> <E61.Time_Primitive> <claros:notBefore> > > So in what way is the CRM useful for deriving these simpler "short-cut" > properties that the Linked Data initiative needs? The OWL language is ideally placed to express these "short cuts." OWL enables the introduction of purely synthetic vocabularies, i.e. vocabularies that are syntactic sugar for existing ones. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Ontology_Language Most topics present in the NZETC topic maps need not make it to the "short-cut"-ified version. We're aware, for example that dbpedia doesn't make a distinction between different editions, folios and printings of "Richard II" which CIDOC CRM does. Topics for these would be merged. OTOH, dbpedia does make a distinction between "Richard II" (the work) and "Richard II" (the king of England). cheers stuart |
From: Sebastian R. <seb...@ou...> - 2008-10-09 23:27:36
|
Øyvind Eide wrote: > To be able to plan the Saturday meeting, it would be very nice if you > could tell me: > > - Will you be there at the Saturday meeting? I plan to be at ontology this year > - Do you have something you want to present during the meeting? > > - Are there specific topics you want to discuss? I'm working on a project at the moment where the intention is to amalgamate data from different collections using CIDOC-CRM concepts. The collection I have to deliver for is done in TEI XML. So I'm looking for discussion of whether/how others are actually deliving CIDOC from TEI source. -- Sebastian Rahtz Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431 |