From: Markus <ma...@ai...> - 2006-05-17 15:06:32
|
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 18:50, Olivier Dameron wrote: > Hi Markus, > > On Tue, 16 May 2006 16:16:08 +0200, Markus Kr=F6tzsch > > <ma...@ai...> wrote: > > It should work. A related remark first: if you want to say "rdf:type" > > then you might prefer to use MediaWiki's categories. > > I really don't think so: how will I make the difference between > [universities or partos of universities] on one hand, and things that are > somehow related to universities ont the other hand ? I don't quite get this example, but I am sure that you can find many exampl= es=20 that demonstrate your point. We clearly do not increase expressivity by=20 limiting the set of URIs that wiki users can refer to! So this is all agree= d. Our motivation is in fact different. SMW is planned to be a tool for=20 semantically annotating a wiki in the wiki-way. The primary purpose here is= =20 to structure the existing data in the wiki. We want to give the users total= =20 freedom about the language elements, i.e. individuals, properties, classes,= =20 that are described or used for description. We do, however, not want to let= =20 users choose the structuring paradigm (e.g. "Do we use OWL or RDFS=20 classes?"). This should eventually be the choice of the wiki admin, since i= t=20 has many technical ramifications (which tools can you use? how complicated= =20 are certain tasks? ...). But if you allow reference to arbitrary URIs, then you might have users=20 referring to owl or rdf language constructs (which represent the underlying= =20 formalism) as if they were actual language elements (e.g. properties). This= =20 forces you to use either RDF or OWL-Full as a data model, and the admin has= =20 no choice. In other words, the use of external URIs is a feature by which a= =20 single article (and thus a single user) can enforce certain datamodels upon= =20 the whole wiki. We think that this creates problems for the typical semanti= c=20 web reuse scenarios, since you can no longer know what kind of data the wik= i=20 exports: one day it is OWL-DL, another day, it is OWL-Full with all=20 OWL-language constructs redefined, yet another day, you have nice polynomia= l=20 OWL-fragement of RDF. So everybody who uses the wiki's data must either=20 employ an OWL-Full reasoner ;-) or has to ignore/strip/reshape part of the= =20 RDF export and thus to effectively change the knowledge the wiki exports. T= he=20 wiki users cannot influence how this is done, and the reuser cannot foresee= =20 what language the wiki-users will decide on today. Other than this, I am fine with e.g. using some foaf-property like an=20 attribute within the wiki. And this might be enabled via=20 inter-project-link-like "interontology links" that are switched on or off b= y=20 the admin. Then the admin also might decide to enable "rdf:" if he likes th= is=20 concept of a wiki that can talk about the details of this W3C standard ... Best regards, Markus > > > For these, we > > already have some limited support for hierarchy data (so sub-category > > realtionsships are respected). > > I think that the problem to solve should drive the choice of the tool, and > not the other way around. > > > This is not the case for any user > > defined reltionship, be it called "rdf:type" or not. So, instead of > > writing [[rdf:type::University]], consider using > > [[Category:University]]. In this way, you end up with two > > individuals: an article University and a category (owl:class) > > Category:University. This is not much of a problem for wiki usage, > > but of course you cannot put the Category:University into other > > categories (you just can make it a subcategory). In short: you would > > use the owl-class model where classes are interpreted as sets of > > individuals -- not the rdfs class model where this is not the case. > > I am not sure I understand you correctly here: > all owl:Class is an rdfs:Class. Even in owl, the subsumption relation is > rdfs:subClassOf and the instanciation relation is rdf:type. > > I agree that I shoud make University an owl:Class and not a rdf:Class > > > In any case, I would avoid calling relations rdf:... simply because > > this might be misleading for the users. > > then we probably need either a solution for hiding it from the user, or a > solution for saying that the Is_a relation should be interpreted by formal > tools as rdf:type. I am not so sure though. > > > In the rdf export, every > > relation gets a URI along the same scheme, no matter whether it > > starts with rdf: or not. So the real rdf:... properties are different > > from the wiki's relations. > > Aaah, I was not aware of this. > I find it confusing and somehow in contradiction with the capability to > import ontologies. I can't think of any advantage for obfuscating the > namespaces like it is currently done. Any hint? > > > This said, here comes your query: > > > > <ask>[[works at::<q>[[Category:University]]</q></ask> > > thanks > > > I guess mutliple levels of nesting are not supported (or only to some > > degree). > > Right. No big deal though, as I believe this kind of thing is exactly what > a reasoner (rdfs, DL,... whatever the user needs at usage time and > according to its requirements) should do, and i don't see the point of > having such reasoners embedded within semediawiki. I started thinking abo= ut > the possibility to call externa lreasoning services, but nothing matured > enough yet. > > > * MediaWiki (Semantic or not) supports " " in article names. Hacks > > like "_" or CamelCase are no longer needed. Just write as in normal > > English texts. > > Point taken. This is an old habit from formal ontology tools and old scho= ol > wikis :-) > > > * Feel free to put the examples at [[Help:Inline query examples]] and > > link it from [[Help:Inline queries]]. It would be a helpful addition > > to our documentation. > > Will do. > > Cheers, > Olivier =2D-=20 Markus Kr=F6tzsch Institute AIFB, University of Karlsruhe, D-76128 Karlsruhe ma...@ai... phone +49 (0)721 608 7362 www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/ fax +49 (0)721 693 717 |