From: Uschold, M. F <mic...@bo...> - 2007-08-04 01:14:25
|
SUMMARY: =20 The semantics of categories in Media Wiki seems to be too general, so that it is not amenable to linking up with OWL.=20 =20 For example, by conflating subclass and instance with one relation, 'Category', I cannot capture the fact that say Person is an instance of OWLClass, and also a subclass of OWLThing.=20 =20 One specific problem arises when I create a Template for say Project.=20 =20 I want every project created to be in Category Project, so I include "[[Category:Project]]" in the wiki page: "Template:Project".=20 This gives the desired result that each wiki page using the template is in the project category. =20 However, it ALSO puts the template itself in the Project Category. This is fine if the semantics is: "is related to in some way". But I want the semantics of OWL: is a member of the classs. I don't know how to do this in SMW. =20 Another problem is that if I use another template on the same page (say Manager), then the page will be in both categories: Project and Manager. =20 Again, this is fine with the semantics being "is related to in some way". But it gives the wrong answer if I want to interpret this as member/instance of a class. A page that happed to use a macro that was about a certain topic is what I get. I want to clearly say that a wiki page is an instance of a class and not the broader meaning of "is related to in some way". =20 So the basic question is: how can I get the Semantic Media Wiki to distinguish different meanings of 'Catagory' that OWL supports and that I need given they seem to be all conflated in SMW. =20 I fear I will be doing a variety of workarounds. =20 If anyone has any thoughts on this, I'd be grateful. =20 DETAILS:=20 =20 Here is my current understanding of a MW Category: * Fundamentally, it seems to be a tag to associate with one or more wiki pages, much like a FlickR tag (e.g. Person, Africa) * A Category can have sub-Categories (e.g. AirlinePilot for Person and South-Africa for Africa) * A page that is associated with a sub-Category is also associated with all super-Categories (hierarchical inference of a sort) * When a Category page is shown, you get to see all the pages in that category for free =20 =20 That seems to be about it. With such a weak semantics for Category, it can be used to represent many different things:=20 =20 * subclass e.g. AirlinePilot is a subclass of Person=20 * instance e.g. Africa is an instance of a Country e.g. Joe is an instance of a SouthAfricaPerson * subregion e.g. SouthAfrica is a subregion of Africa * topic: e.g. SouthAfricaBook is a book on the topic of SouthAfrica =20 As it is, this can give rise to undesirable inferences.=20 In OWL, we need to make clear distinctions between these kinds of relationships.=20 =20 =20 EXAMPLE =20 Suppose we have a category hierarchy as follows.=20 Person AirlinePilot AfricanPerson SouthAfricanPerson =20 Africa SouthAfrica SouthAfricanPerson SouthAfricaBook =20 Country SouthAfrica =20 PhysicalObject Book SouthAfricaBook =20 Suppose we have the following wiki pages: =20 Wiki Page Description Category=20 Joe A person living in South Africa SouthAfricanPerson Apartheid A book about South Africa SouthAfricaBook =20 MediaWiki will infer: That JOE: is in the following categories: * SouthAfrica, Africa, Country, Person =20 That APARTHEID is in the following categories: Book, PhysicalObject, SouthAfrica, Africa, Country =20 Are these desirable inferences? =20 Q: What is the relationship between the book Apartheid and the category Country? A: It is a book about a place that happens to be in a particular country. =20 Well, virtually all places are in some country, so such inferences will often be irrelevant and unwanted. =20 IHMO, the root of the problem is that the semantics of Category is very weak - it can be used to represent any arbitrary association*=20 =20 Michael=20 =20 * I do recognize a tradeoff here: a weak semantics makes it easier for the masses to do enter information. =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=20 Michael Uschold=20 M&CT, Phantom Works=20 425 373-2845=20 mic...@bo... =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=20 ----------------------------------------------------=20 COOL TIP: to skip the phone menu tree and get a human on the phone, go to: http://gethuman.com/tips.html=20 =20 |
From: Danny A. <dan...@gm...> - 2007-08-04 09:44:27
|
On 04/08/07, Uschold, Michael F <mic...@bo...> wrote: > > > > SUMMARY: > > The semantics of categories in Media Wiki seems to be too general, so that > it is not amenable to linking up with OWL. With OWL DL, I believe you're right. But this doesn't rule out using parts of OWL (e.g. <categoryA> owl:sameAs <categoryB>) under OWL Full. It may be possible to apply the usual trick of indirection to get around the problem you describe. I've not looked closely, but categories could perhaps be wrapped into SKOS [1] concepts, so the reasoning would be over properties like broader/narrower, without the potential inconsistencies brought on through using subclass relationships directly. (Not unrelated is the Tag Ontology [2] which uses SKOS to cover folksonomy tagging). I don't believe it's going to solve the kind of problem you describe overnight (especially since there appear to be other aspects that are further from RDF/RDFS) but there may be hope on the horizon with OWL 1.1: [[ In OWL 1.1 a name (such as Person) can be used as any or all of an individual, a class, or a property. The computational problems that would arise if this were treated as in RDF are avoided by ensuring that no aspect of the use of the name as an individual has any effect on the meaning of the name as a class. Such a treatment of metamodeling is often called punning. ]] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-owl11-overview-20061219/#2.4 Cheers, Danny. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-skos-core-guide/ [2] http://www.holygoat.co.uk/projects/tags/ -- http://dannyayers.com |
From: Uschold, M. F <mic...@bo...> - 2007-08-06 18:50:54
|
Thanks. I'm not familiar with "the usual trick of indirection". Are there some nice pointers to explanations and examples of how it can be used to accomplish varoius things? Thanks Michael =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D Michael Uschold M&CT, Phantom Works=20 425 373-2845 mic...@bo... =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D ---------------------------------------------------- COOL TIP: to skip the phone menu tree and get a human on the phone, go to: http://gethuman.com/tips.html=20 -----Original Message----- From: Danny Ayers [mailto:dan...@gm...]=20 Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 2:44 AM To: Uschold, Michael F Cc: med...@wi...; sem...@li...; sw...@ai...; Clark, Peter E; Kitzmiller, Ted; Jones, David H; Folger, Deborah H; Murray, William R Subject: Re: [swikig] Semantics of MW Categories and OWL On 04/08/07, Uschold, Michael F <mic...@bo...> wrote: > > > > SUMMARY: > > The semantics of categories in Media Wiki seems to be too general, so=20 > that it is not amenable to linking up with OWL. With OWL DL, I believe you're right. But this doesn't rule out using parts of OWL (e.g. <categoryA> owl:sameAs <categoryB>) under OWL Full. It may be possible to apply the usual trick of indirection to get around the problem you describe. I've not looked closely, but categories could perhaps be wrapped into SKOS [1] concepts, so the reasoning would be over properties like broader/narrower, without the potential inconsistencies brought on through using subclass relationships directly. (Not unrelated is the Tag Ontology [2] which uses SKOS to cover folksonomy tagging). I don't believe it's going to solve the kind of problem you describe overnight (especially since there appear to be other aspects that are further from RDF/RDFS) but there may be hope on the horizon with OWL 1.1: [[ In OWL 1.1 a name (such as Person) can be used as any or all of an individual, a class, or a property. The computational problems that would arise if this were treated as in RDF are avoided by ensuring that no aspect of the use of the name as an individual has any effect on the meaning of the name as a class. Such a treatment of metamodeling is often called punning. ]] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-owl11-overview-20061219/#2.4 Cheers, Danny. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-skos-core-guide/ [2] http://www.holygoat.co.uk/projects/tags/ --=20 http://dannyayers.com |
From: Yaron K. <ya...@gm...> - 2007-08-04 13:40:14
|
Hi Michael, In answer to your specific questions about categories, you should check out this thread from a month ago: http://www.mail-archive.com/sem...@li.../msg00563.html. Long story short, though categories are used for many things in MediaWiki, in Semantic MediaWiki they should really only be used to indicate instances and subclasses (and the way to differentiate between those two is that one is itself a category and the other is not). Also, you can avoid having a template itself be part of a category through use of the "<includeonly>" tag. -Yaron On 8/4/07, Danny Ayers <dan...@gm...> wrote: > > On 04/08/07, Uschold, Michael F <mic...@bo...> wrote: > > > > > > > > SUMMARY: > > > > The semantics of categories in Media Wiki seems to be too general, so > that > > it is not amenable to linking up with OWL. > > With OWL DL, I believe you're right. But this doesn't rule out using > parts of OWL (e.g. <categoryA> owl:sameAs <categoryB>) under OWL Full. > > It may be possible to apply the usual trick of indirection to get > around the problem you describe. I've not looked closely, but > categories could perhaps be wrapped into SKOS [1] concepts, so the > reasoning would be over properties like broader/narrower, without the > potential inconsistencies brought on through using subclass > relationships directly. (Not unrelated is the Tag Ontology [2] which > uses SKOS to cover folksonomy tagging). > > I don't believe it's going to solve the kind of problem you describe > overnight (especially since there appear to be other aspects that are > further from RDF/RDFS) but there may be hope on the horizon with OWL > 1.1: > [[ > In OWL 1.1 a name (such as Person) can be used as any or all of an > individual, a class, or a property. The computational problems that > would arise if this were treated as in RDF are avoided by ensuring > that no aspect of the use of the name as an individual has any effect > on the meaning of the name as a class. Such a treatment of > metamodeling is often called punning. > ]] > http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-owl11-overview-20061219/#2.4 > > Cheers, > Danny. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-skos-core-guide/ > [2] http://www.holygoat.co.uk/projects/tags/ > > -- > > http://dannyayers.com > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Semediawiki-user mailing list > Sem...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user > |
From: S P. <ski...@ea...> - 2007-08-10 23:15:04
|
(Again following up only to semediawiki-user -- I doubt the other mailing lists are interested.) Yaron said: > >> "though categories are used for many things in MediaWiki, in Semantic >> MediaWiki they should really only be used to indicate instances and >> subclasses" That's just a recommendation *if you care about precise semantics*. If you never export as RDF, what's the harm? You just get some unexpected pages in query results. Uschold, Michael F wrote: > I'm now getting this. However, the documentation about Annotation > ( http://ontoworld.org/wiki/Help:Annotation ) in SMW says: > "Categories can have many different interpretations. ... > Semantic MediaWiki endorses > this practical usage of categories: categories should be used to > describe collections of articles that are considered useful or > interesting for users." Good point. That help on categories seems to predate their strict representation in SMW's RDF Export. I changed the help documentation: * http://ontoworld.org/wiki/Help:Annotation#Categories no longer endorses, and mentions inconsistencies. * http://ontoworld.org/wiki/Help:RDF_export#The_exported_data_in_detail explains how categories are exported. > If you use [categories] differently, then bad things will happen when > the translation to RDF happens, and when hierarchical inference occurs, What external program are you using that does hierarchical inference, and what "bad things" happen? (Does it blow up like the computer in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarGames :-) ) -- =S Page |
From: Uschold, M. F <mic...@bo...> - 2007-08-14 06:09:35
|
See inline comments.=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D Michael Uschold M&CT, Phantom Works=20 425 373-2845 mic...@bo... =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D ---------------------------------------------------- COOL TIP: to skip the phone menu tree and get a human on the phone, go to: http://gethuman.com/tips.html=20 -----Original Message----- From: S Page [mailto:ski...@ea...]=20 Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 4:14 PM To: Uschold, Michael F Cc: Yaron Koren; Clark, Peter E; Jones, David H; sem...@li...; Kitzmiller, Ted; Folger, Deborah H; Murray, William R Subject: Re: [Semediawiki-user] Semantics of MW Categories and OWL (Again following up only to semediawiki-user -- I doubt the other mailing lists are interested.) Yaron said: > =20 >> "though categories are used for many things in MediaWiki, in Semantic >> MediaWiki they should really only be used to indicate instances and=20 >> subclasses" That's just a recommendation *if you care about precise semantics*. If you never export as RDF, what's the harm? You just get some unexpected pages in query results. MFU: That's right. If you care about semantics, then you care about wrong query results. I care about semantics, which is why I'm using a semantic wiki. -- Uschold, Michael F wrote: > I'm now getting this. However, the documentation about Annotation (=20 > http://ontoworld.org/wiki/Help:Annotation ) in SMW says: > "Categories can have many different interpretations. ... > Semantic MediaWiki endorses > this practical usage of categories: categories should be used to=20 > describe collections of articles that are considered useful or=20 > interesting for users." Good point. That help on categories seems to predate their strict representation in SMW's RDF Export. I changed the help documentation: * http://ontoworld.org/wiki/Help:Annotation#Categories no longer endorses, and mentions inconsistencies. * http://ontoworld.org/wiki/Help:RDF_export#The_exported_data_in_detail explains how categories are exported. MFU: thanks, that is good. -- > If you use [categories] differently, then bad things will happen when=20 > the translation to RDF happens, and when hierarchical inference=20 > occurs, What external program are you using that does hierarchical inference, and what "bad things" happen? (Does it blow up like the computer in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarGames :-) ) MFU: by bad things, I mean wrong inferences. I'm not actually doing this external inference, but one could ih principle. -- =3DS Page |
From: Uschold, M. F <mic...@bo...> - 2007-08-06 17:55:36
|
Yaron said: =20 "though categories are used for many things in MediaWiki, in Semantic MediaWiki they should really only be used to indicate instances and subclasses" =20 I'm now getting this. However, the documentation about Annotation <BLOCKED::http://ontoworld.org/wiki/Help:Annotation> in SMW says:=20 "Categories can have many different interpretations. For example, the category "City" might comprise of all articles about cities, i.e. it describes that something is a city. Other categories, such as the category "Mathematics," might rather describe the topic area of an article. Many other interpretations exist. Semantic MediaWiki endorses this practical usage of categories: categories should be used to describe collections of articles that are considered useful or interesting for users." =20 How can this be? It seems to directly conflict what many have said, that Categories in SMW should only be used as follows: * a category of a category is a subclass * an article of a category is an instance =20 If you use them differently, then bad things will happen when the translation to RDF happens, and when hierarchical inference occurs, as per my original message on this theme when you use Category for a mix of partOf, instanceOf, subClassOf, isAboutTopic, etc. =20 I'm inclined to think this is mistaken, or at best, confusing/misleading. =20 Michael=20 =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=20 Michael Uschold=20 M&CT, Phantom Works=20 425 373-2845=20 mic...@bo... =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=20 ----------------------------------------------------=20 COOL TIP: to skip the phone menu tree and get a human on the phone, go to: http://gethuman.com/tips.html=20 =20 ________________________________ From: Yaron Koren [mailto:ya...@gm...]=20 Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 6:40 AM To: Uschold, Michael F Cc: Danny Ayers; Jones, David H; Folger, Deborah H; med...@wi...; Murray, William R; sem...@li...; Clark, Peter E; Kitzmiller, Ted; sw...@ai... Subject: Re: [Semediawiki-user] [swikig] Semantics of MW Categories and OWL Hi Michael, In answer to your specific questions about categories, you should check out this thread from a month ago: http://www.mail-archive.com/sem...@li.../msg00 563.html . Long story short, though categories are used for many things in MediaWiki, in Semantic MediaWiki they should really only be used to indicate instances and subclasses (and the way to differentiate between those two is that one is itself a category and the other is not).=20 Also, you can avoid having a template itself be part of a category through use of the "<includeonly>" tag. -Yaron On 8/4/07, Danny Ayers <dan...@gm...> wrote:=20 On 04/08/07, Uschold, Michael F <mic...@bo...> wrote: > > > > SUMMARY: > > The semantics of categories in Media Wiki seems to be too general, so that=20 > it is not amenable to linking up with OWL. =09 With OWL DL, I believe you're right. But this doesn't rule out using parts of OWL (e.g. <categoryA> owl:sameAs <categoryB>) under OWL Full.=20 =09 It may be possible to apply the usual trick of indirection to get around the problem you describe. I've not looked closely, but categories could perhaps be wrapped into SKOS [1] concepts, so the reasoning would be over properties like broader/narrower, without the=20 potential inconsistencies brought on through using subclass relationships directly. (Not unrelated is the Tag Ontology [2] which uses SKOS to cover folksonomy tagging). =09 I don't believe it's going to solve the kind of problem you describe=20 overnight (especially since there appear to be other aspects that are further from RDF/RDFS) but there may be hope on the horizon with OWL 1.1: [[ In OWL 1.1 a name (such as Person) can be used as any or all of an=20 individual, a class, or a property. The computational problems that would arise if this were treated as in RDF are avoided by ensuring that no aspect of the use of the name as an individual has any effect on the meaning of the name as a class. Such a treatment of=20 metamodeling is often called punning. ]] =09 http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-owl11-overview-20061219/#2.4 =09 Cheers, Danny.=20 =09 [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-skos-core-guide/ [2] http://www.holygoat.co.uk/projects/tags/ =09 -- =09 http://dannyayers.com =09 =09 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.=20 Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________=20 Semediawiki-user mailing list Sem...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user=20 =09 |
From: Martin H. (UIBK) <mar...@ui...> - 2007-08-07 15:08:54
|
Dear all: We have discussed the differences between labels taken as categories (without a clear notion of what it means to be an instance of it) vs. ontology classes, where a context-independent notion of what it means to be an instance in the paper [1], available at http://www.heppnetz.de/files/hepp-de-bruijn-ESWC2007-gentax-CRC.pdf In short, we propose to create two ontology classes in such cases, one constrained to a narrow meaning in a particular context (e.g. "TV set" as all true instances of product; this one we call the "generic" class) and a second, broader one that is defined as the union of all interpretations in various contexts (e.g. "TV Set" as any product, invoice, book, ... that can reasonably subsumed under the label "TV set"; this one we call the taxonomic or category concept). One advantage of this is that in most cases, the original hierarchy can be reused as rdfs:subclassOf relations between the taxonomic classes, even if typical modeling anomalies in classifications prevent that for the generic classes. We have a tool almost ready for release that can convert typical SKOS vocabularies into consistent OWL or RDF-S ontologies based on this approach. Maybe that one can be integrated with MW. Best Martin ---------------------------------------- martin hepp, http://www.heppnetz.de [1] Martin Hepp, Jos de Bruijn: GenTax: A Generic Methodology for Deriving OWL and RDF-S Ontologies from Hierarchical Classifications, Thesauri, and Inconsistent Taxonomies, Proceedings of the 4th European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC 2007), June 3-7, Innsbruck, Austria, in: E. Fraconi, M. Kifer, and W. May (Eds.): ESWC 2007, LNCS 4519, Springer 2007, pp.129-144. Uschold, Michael F wrote: > > Yaron said: > > " though categories are used for many things in MediaWiki, in Semantic > MediaWiki they should really only be used to indicate instances and > subclasses" > > I'm now getting this. However, the documentation about Annotation > <BLOCKED::http://ontoworld.org/wiki/Help:Annotation>in SMW says: > " Categories can have many different interpretations. For example, the > category "City" might comprise of all articles about cities, i.e. it > describes that something is a city. Other categories, such as the > category "Mathematics," might rather describe the topic area of an > article. Many other interpretations exist. Semantic MediaWiki endorses > this practical usage of categories: categories should be used to > describe collections of articles that are considered useful or > interesting for users. " > > How can this be? It seems to directly conflict what many have said, that > Categories in SMW should only be used as follows: > * a category of a category is a subclass > * an article of a category is an instance > > If you use them differently, then bad things will happen when the > translation to RDF happens, and when hierarchical inference occurs, as > per my original message on this theme when you use Category for a mix of > partOf, instanceOf, subClassOf, isAboutTopic, etc. > > I'm inclined to think this is mistaken, or at best, confusing/misleading. > > Michael > > > ========================== > Michael Uschold > M&CT, Phantom Works > 425 373-2845 > mic...@bo... > ========================== > > ---------------------------------------------------- > COOL TIP: to skip the phone menu tree and get a human on the phone, go > to: http://gethuman.com/tips.html > > > > > *From:* Yaron Koren [mailto:ya...@gm...] > *Sent:* Saturday, August 04, 2007 6:40 AM > *To:* Uschold, Michael F > *Cc:* Danny Ayers; Jones, David H; Folger, Deborah H; > med...@wi...; Murray, William R; > sem...@li...; Clark, Peter E; Kitzmiller, Ted; > sw...@ai... > *Subject:* Re: [Semediawiki-user] [swikig] Semantics of MW Categories > and OWL > > Hi Michael, > > In answer to your specific questions about categories, you should check > out this thread from a month ago: > http://www.mail-archive.com/sem...@li.../msg00563.html > <http://www.mail-archive.com/sem...@li.../msg00563.html>. > Long story short, though categories are used for many things in > MediaWiki, in Semantic MediaWiki they should really only be used to > indicate instances and subclasses (and the way to differentiate between > those two is that one is itself a category and the other is not). > > Also, you can avoid having a template itself be part of a category > through use of the "<includeonly>" tag. > > -Yaron > > On 8/4/07, *Danny Ayers* <dan...@gm... > <mailto:dan...@gm...>> wrote: > > On 04/08/07, Uschold, Michael F <mic...@bo... > <mailto:mic...@bo...>> wrote: > > > > > > > > SUMMARY: > > > > The semantics of categories in Media Wiki seems to be too > general, so that > > it is not amenable to linking up with OWL. > > With OWL DL, I believe you're right. But this doesn't rule out using > parts of OWL (e.g. <categoryA> owl:sameAs <categoryB>) under OWL Full. > > It may be possible to apply the usual trick of indirection to get > around the problem you describe. I've not looked closely, but > categories could perhaps be wrapped into SKOS [1] concepts, so the > reasoning would be over properties like broader/narrower, without the > potential inconsistencies brought on through using subclass > relationships directly. (Not unrelated is the Tag Ontology [2] which > uses SKOS to cover folksonomy tagging). > > I don't believe it's going to solve the kind of problem you describe > overnight (especially since there appear to be other aspects that are > further from RDF/RDFS) but there may be hope on the horizon with OWL > 1.1: > [[ > In OWL 1.1 a name (such as Person) can be used as any or all of an > individual, a class, or a property. The computational problems that > would arise if this were treated as in RDF are avoided by ensuring > that no aspect of the use of the name as an individual has any effect > on the meaning of the name as a class. Such a treatment of > metamodeling is often called punning. > ]] > http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-owl11-overview-20061219/#2.4 > > Cheers, > Danny. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-skos-core-guide/ > [2] http://www.holygoat.co.uk/projects/tags/ > > -- > > http://dannyayers.com > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Semediawiki-user mailing list > Sem...@li... > <mailto:Sem...@li...> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user > <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > swikig mailing list > sw...@ai... > http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/mailman/listinfo/swikig |
From: S P. <in...@sk...> - 2007-09-02 21:09:09
|
Martin Hepp (UIBK) wrote: > In short, we propose to create two ontology classes in such cases, one > constrained to a narrow meaning in a particular context (e.g. "TV set" > as all true instances of product; this one we call the "generic" class) > and a second, broader one that is defined as the union of all > interpretations in various contexts (e.g. "TV Set" as any product, > invoice, book, ... that can reasonably subsumed under the label "TV > set"; this one we call the taxonomic or category concept). I remarked in another thread that "the wisdom of crowds" on Wikipedia may be addressing this by having both Category:Cities: This category includes articles on cities themselves. and Category:City: This category contains articles on the study of cities. > One advantage > of this is that in most cases, the original hierarchy can be reused as > rdfs:subclassOf relations between the taxonomic classes, even if typical > modeling anomalies in classifications prevent that for the generic classes. > We have a tool almost ready for release that can convert typical SKOS > vocabularies into consistent OWL or RDF-S ontologies based on this > approach. Maybe that one can be integrated with MW. Do you have any recommendation for annotating a Semantic MediaWiki to mark the different uses of hierarchy? I couldn't tell from your paper ( > http://www.heppnetz.de/files/hepp-de-bruijn-ESWC2007-gentax-CRC.pdf ). SMW users keep noticing this problem, so it would be nice if ontoworld.org used evolving "best practices" for its categories and properties, without straying too far from Wikipedia conventions. -- =S Page |
From: Platonides <Pla...@gm...> - 2007-08-04 18:50:09
|
Uschold, Michael F wrote: > However, it ALSO puts the _template itself_ in the Project Category. > This is fine if the semantics is: "is related to in some way". But I > want the semantics of OWL: is a member of the classs. I don't know how > to do this in SMW. In Template:Projecty use <includeonly>[[Category:Project]]</includeonly> |
From: S P. <ski...@ea...> - 2007-08-05 01:54:21
|
(Following up only to semediawiki-user) > So the basic question is: *how can I get the Semantic Media Wiki to > distinguish different meanings of 'Catagory' that OWL supports and that > I need* given they seem to be all conflated in SMW. Categories aren't conflated in SMW, they're conflated in MediaWiki, because people use them loosely and inexactly as they make up category hierarchies and assign them. As has been discussed on semediawiki-user a few times, SMW's RDF Export assigns very specific meanings to categories * an article with a category has <rdf:type> of that category * a category with a category has <rdfs:subClassOf> of that category (with a distinction between the pages and the "things" they describe). These are correct semantics for most usage but it's easy to find other usage. If you care, I think you have a few choices: 1. Change pages that don't match these semantics to use different relations, such as "is a kind of" or "narrows" instead of Category. You can use http://ontoworld.org/wiki/Help:Import_vocabulary to get RDF Export to export these relations with names from external ontologies. The downside is you lose the browsing and navigation of category hierarchies that MediaWiki provides, and the nested searching of subcategories that SMW semantic search provides. (It would be nice if SMW semantic search could generalize its nested searching of subcategories so that searching on any transitive property would do a similar recursive search.) 2. Keep using Category, but add SMW annotations to unusual articles and categories to express the different semantics. You'd have to modify SMW_SpecialExportRDF.php to pay attention to the additional annotation and export differently. 3. Modify MediaWiki and SMW to have additional namespaces that work similar to Category but with your desired semantics. In any approach, good luck coming up with names that make sense to your wiki's users ;-) . Regards, -- =S |
From: Dan B. <da...@da...> - 2007-08-05 06:31:15
|
S Page wrote: > (Following up only to semediawiki-user) > >> So the basic question is: *how can I get the Semantic Media Wiki to >> distinguish different meanings of 'Catagory' that OWL supports and that >> I need* given they seem to be all conflated in SMW. > > Categories aren't conflated in SMW, they're conflated in MediaWiki, > because people use them loosely and inexactly as they make up category > hierarchies and assign them. We have a W3C spec in this space, fwiw: SKOS (see http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/) models thesaurus-like category and concept hierarchies, which very often are similarly inexact. Yet useful... Not sure how this could/should plug into SMW, but I encourage folk to take a look. In particular, there's a use cases document here -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-skos-ucr-20070516/ cheers, Dan |
From: Uschold, M. F <mic...@bo...> - 2007-08-06 17:33:38
|
S Page said:=20 Categories aren't conflated in SMW, they're conflated in MediaWiki, because people use them loosely and inexactly as they make up category hierarchies and assign them. -- =20 By 'conflated' I meant that the same term is used in SMW for two different meanings: subclass and instance. I should have used the more accurate term: overloaded. =20 =20 I also now see how the context of a use of Category disambiguates the meaning. Category in a Category is subclass, Article in a Category is instance. However, as others have said, this is problematic, as it requires people to do things very differently in SMW compared to MW, making the transition from one to another error-prone. =20 An approach that would reduce this difficulty is to keep the usage of Category the same in SMW as it is in MW, and to create new primitives in SMW that mean exactly what you want them to mean. E.g. subclass or instance (i.e. rdf:type). The benefits are: * old usage patterns don't have to change * the discipline for distinguishing instance from subclass is enforced with the primitive, rather than relying on people having to follow a cconvention (which is asking for trouble) =20 There is a cost of course to this, so it is a tradeoff. One cost is the inability to use the inference that you get with Category. =20 Others have suggested that other relations shold also be supported for things like transitivity etc. YES I AGREE! =20 Perhaps what is needed is some generic relationship-handling code that handles what Category already does, as well a new things. Then the new code could be used to re-implement the same behavior that MW has for Category, but it would also be used for other kinds of relations. =20 Michael=20 =20 =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D Michael Uschold M&CT, Phantom Works 425 373-2845 mic...@bo...=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D ---------------------------------------------------- COOL TIP: to skip the phone menu tree and get a human on the phone, go to: http://gethuman.com/tips.html -----Original Message----- From: S Page [mailto:ski...@ea...] Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 6:54 PM To: Uschold, Michael F Cc: Clark, Peter E; sem...@li...; Kitzmiller, Ted; Jones, David H; Folger, Deborah H; Murray, William R Subject: Re: [Semediawiki-user] Semantics of MW Categories and OWL (Following up only to semediawiki-user) > So the basic question is: *how can I get the Semantic Media Wiki to > distinguish different meanings of 'Catagory' that OWL supports and > that I need* given they seem to be all conflated in SMW. Categories aren't conflated in SMW, they're conflated in MediaWiki, because people use them loosely and inexactly as they make up category hierarchies and assign them. As has been discussed on semediawiki-user a few times, SMW's RDF Export assigns very specific meanings to categories * an article with a category has <rdf:type> of that category * a category with a category has <rdfs:subClassOf> of that category (with a distinction between the pages and the "things" they describe). These are correct semantics for most usage but it's easy to find other usage. If you care, I think you have a few choices: 1. Change pages that don't match these semantics to use different relations, such as "is a kind of" or "narrows" instead of Category. You can use http://ontoworld.org/wiki/Help:Import_vocabulary to get RDF Export to export these relations with names from external ontologies. The downside is you lose the browsing and navigation of category hierarchies that MediaWiki provides, and the nested searching of subcategories that SMW semantic search provides. (It would be nice if SMW semantic search could generalize its nested searching of subcategories so that searching on any transitive property would do a similar recursive search.) 2. Keep using Category, but add SMW annotations to unusual articles and categories to express the different semantics. You'd have to modify SMW_SpecialExportRDF.php to pay attention to the additional annotation and export differently. 3. Modify MediaWiki and SMW to have additional namespaces that work similar to Category but with your desired semantics. In any approach, good luck coming up with names that make sense to your wiki's users ;-) . Regards, -- =3DS |
From: Uschold, M. F <mic...@bo...> - 2007-08-06 18:23:02
|
S. Page suggested: =20 3. Modify MediaWiki and SMW to have additional namespaces that work similar to Category but with your desired semantics. -- Nice idea, but we sure don't want EVERYBODY doing this in many different ways.=20 An obvious thing to do is just have SMW namespaces the echo the OWL namespaces. Then you can encode arbitrary OWL, get the import and export working accurately. Then it is a matter of how much inference you can manage to toss in. Of course, this is now starting to get into a general ontology editor... which is not wanted by some. Michael=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D Michael Uschold M&CT, Phantom Works=20 425 373-2845 mic...@bo... =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D ---------------------------------------------------- COOL TIP: to skip the phone menu tree and get a human on the phone, go to: http://gethuman.com/tips.html=20 -----Original Message----- From: S Page [mailto:ski...@ea...]=20 Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 6:54 PM To: Uschold, Michael F Cc: Clark, Peter E; sem...@li...; Kitzmiller, Ted; Jones, David H; Folger, Deborah H; Murray, William R Subject: Re: [Semediawiki-user] Semantics of MW Categories and OWL (Following up only to semediawiki-user) > So the basic question is: *how can I get the Semantic Media Wiki to=20 > distinguish different meanings of 'Catagory' that OWL supports and=20 > that I need* given they seem to be all conflated in SMW. Categories aren't conflated in SMW, they're conflated in MediaWiki, because people use them loosely and inexactly as they make up category hierarchies and assign them. As has been discussed on semediawiki-user a few times, SMW's RDF Export assigns very specific meanings to categories * an article with a category has <rdf:type> of that category * a category with a category has <rdfs:subClassOf> of that category (with a distinction between the pages and the "things" they describe). These are correct semantics for most usage but it's easy to find other usage. If you care, I think you have a few choices: 1. Change pages that don't match these semantics to use different relations, such as "is a kind of" or "narrows" instead of Category. You can use http://ontoworld.org/wiki/Help:Import_vocabulary to get RDF Export to export these relations with names from external ontologies. The downside is you lose the browsing and navigation of category hierarchies that MediaWiki provides, and the nested searching of subcategories that SMW semantic search provides. (It would be nice if SMW semantic search could generalize its nested searching of subcategories so that searching on any transitive property would do a similar recursive search.) 2. Keep using Category, but add SMW annotations to unusual articles and categories to express the different semantics. You'd have to modify SMW_SpecialExportRDF.php to pay attention to the additional annotation and export differently. 3. Modify MediaWiki and SMW to have additional namespaces that work similar to Category but with your desired semantics. In any approach, good luck coming up with names that make sense to your=20 wiki's users ;-) . Regards, -- =3DS |