smiy-ontologies Mailing List for Some More Individual
Status: Alpha
Brought to you by:
zazi
Menu
▾
▴
smiy-ontologies — A mailing list for SMI ontologies related questions and issues
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2011 |
Jan
|
Feb
(1) |
Mar
(5) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(1) |
Aug
(1) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|---|
|
From: Bob F. <za...@sm...> - 2011-08-17 13:58:40
|
Hello again, today I moved all SMI ontology projects from my GitHub location to the new SMI GitHub location [1]. You can actually find there: 1. The Ordered List Ontology [2] 2. The Association Ontology [3] 3. The Counter Ontology [4] 4. The Media Types Taxonomy [5] 5. The Play Back Ontology [6] 6. The Property Reification Vocabulary [7] 7. The Recommendation Ontology [8] 8. The Weighting Ontology [9] 9. The Info Service Ontology [10] [1] https://github.com/smiy [2] https://github.com/smiy/orderedlistonto [3] https://github.com/smiy/associationonto [4] https://github.com/smiy/counteronto [5] https://github.com/smiy/mediatypes [6] https://github.com/smiy/playbackonto [7] https://github.com/smiy/property_reification [8] https://github.com/smiy/recommendationonto [9] https://github.com/smiy/weightingonto [10] https://github.com/smiy/infoserviceonto Cheers, Bo PS: all authors are added as contributors to the specific ontology repositories as far as possible (i.e. if they have a GitHub account and I found this one ;) ) PPS: missing README files are still on the TODO list :\ On 7/25/2011 12:37 PM, za...@sm... wrote: > Hi everybody, > > today I moved nearly all SMI ontologies to my GitHub repository [1]. > You can actually find there: > > 1. The Ordered List Ontology [2] > 2. The Association Ontology [3] > 3. The Counter Ontology [4] > 4. The Media Types Taxonomy [5] > 5. The Play Back Ontology [6] > 6. The Property Reification Vocabulary [7] > 7. The Recommendation Ontology [8] > 8. The Weighting Ontology [9] > 9. The Info Service Ontology [10] > > The only ontology which is left so far is the Cognitive > Characteristics Ontology. > > Cheers, > > > Bo > > > PS: I'll add all authors as far as possible to the specific projects > PPS: missing README files are TODO as well > > > [1] https://github.com/zazi > [2] https://github.com/zazi/orderedlistonto > [3] https://github.com/zazi/associationonto > [4] https://github.com/zazi/counteronto > [5] https://github.com/zazi/mediatypes > [6] https://github.com/zazi/playbackonto > [7] https://github.com/zazi/property_reification > [8] https://github.com/zazi/recommendationonto > [9] https://github.com/zazi/weightingonto > [10] https://github.com/zazi/infoserviceonto |
|
From: <za...@sm...> - 2011-07-25 10:37:44
|
Hi everybody, today I moved nearly all SMI ontologies to my GitHub repository [1]. You can actually find there: 1. The Ordered List Ontology [2] 2. The Association Ontology [3] 3. The Counter Ontology [4] 4. The Media Types Taxonomy [5] 5. The Play Back Ontology [6] 6. The Property Reification Vocabulary [7] 7. The Recommendation Ontology [8] 8. The Weighting Ontology [9] 9. The Info Service Ontology [10] The only ontology which is left so far is the Cognitive Characteristics Ontology. Cheers, Bo PS: I'll add all authors as far as possible to the specific projects PPS: missing README files are TODO as well [1] https://github.com/zazi [2] https://github.com/zazi/orderedlistonto [3] https://github.com/zazi/associationonto [4] https://github.com/zazi/counteronto [5] https://github.com/zazi/mediatypes [6] https://github.com/zazi/playbackonto [7] https://github.com/zazi/property_reification [8] https://github.com/zazi/recommendationonto [9] https://github.com/zazi/weightingonto [10] https://github.com/zazi/infoserviceonto |
|
From: Paolo C. <pao...@gm...> - 2011-03-15 14:17:36
|
Dear Bob, I said 'I wish we had this discussion before so we could have a unique model' not 'they don't have their right and purpose to exist'. I am sorry, I think I keep having big communications issues with you. Nothing personal, but this does not seem to be an efficient way to communicate. I am sure you can find other people to proficiently discuss with. As I said in the past, I wish you all the best with your projects. Best, Paolo On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Bob Ferris <za...@sm...> wrote: > Hi Paolo, > > Am 14.03.2011 15:36, schrieb Paolo Ciccarese: > > Dear Bob, >> I am happy to see this draft of comparison, I wish we had this >> discussion before so we could have a unique model. >> > > Yes, of course. Unfortunately, the former discussion (where I announced the > Ordered List Ontology [8,9,10]) ended with the result that they both have > their right and purpose to exist. That is why, I previously don't > investigated efforts into a mixing. > > > I did not have time to read the document carefully. Therefore, the first >> thought are general. >> >> I've been doing public comparison and alignment work for W3C Working >> Groups many times (see for instance http://www.w3.org/TR/hcls-swansioc/ >> ) and a good suggestion is to use a wiki first. It is more democratic - >> on the contrary of a PDF - and people can fix the mistakes/inaccuracies >> rapidly. Otherwise it becomes your personal view on something and will >> generate long and time expensive threads of emails. >> > > Yes, you are right. Therefore, I set-up a wiki and deployed the content of > the PDF document in a wiki page, which can be found at [1]. > I hope everybody can get access to it (I guess, you need a sourceforge > account for it). Please contact me, if there are any problem (so far I only > sometimes noticed time-outs from the sourceforge server, however, this was > currently for me the easiest way to set up a wiki). > > > One example: SWAN Collections, besides the name, is totally general. >> There are no project dependencies in the OWL. >> > > Yes, however, the abstract is probably a bit deterrently. This text maybe > can be put in a background section. > > > In fact, as I was telling >> you by email is used by at least 10 groups that contacted me many times >> in the past asking me questions to understand and in order to avoid >> creating another collection ontology. These includes: SWAN, FaBIO the >> FRBR based bibiliographic ontology, EARMARKS for example... >> >> Also, you need to define a goal. What is this comparison for? Are you >> willing to spend energy to collapse the models? Are you ready eventually >> to drop yours? Every time I am starting a comparison process I know it >> might end up with dropping my model. For instance that has been the >> result of the process for integrating SWAN with CiTO: >> http://www.w3.org/wiki/HCLSIG/SWANSIOC/Actions/SWANCiTO . The result has >> been to reduce the number of redundant models and have an ongoing >> collaboration between the two groups. >> >> Would you be ready to eventually, if it makes sense, drop your model? >> Otherwise I don't see why to start the process as you seem happy with >> your model and us with ours. >> > > I have no strong opinion, which ontology we should deprecate. Albeit, I can > imagine one ontology that includes the modelling capacities of both. So, if > we come to an agreement re. the expressiveness of the vocabulary, we can do > a mixing and promote this result. > > The Ordered List Ontology is currently reused (AFAIK) in the Stories > Ontology [2,3] and the Sport Ontology [4,5] showed some interest in apply > the Ordered List Ontology, too. > Besides, I utilized this vocabulary in the Play Back Ontology [6] and the > Recommendation Ontology [7]. That is why, changing the latter dependencies > wouldn't be such a problem. > > Finally, I'm quite interested in that the ontology is properly deployed and > promoted (I noticed there some drawbacks with the SWAN Collections > Ontology). > > Cheers, > > > Bob > > > [1] > https://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/smiy/index.php?title=A_Comparision_of_the_SWAN_Collections_Ontology_and_the_Ordered_List_Ontology > [2] http://www.contextus.net/stories/ > [3] http://tobyz.net/tobyzstuff/projects/bbcstories > [4] http://www.bbc.co.uk/ontologies/sport/2011-02-17.shtml > [5] http://twitter.com/silveroliver/status/40712231444287488 > [6] http://purl.org/ontology/pbo/core# > [7] http://purl.org/ontology/rec/core# > [8] > > http://groups.google.com/group/music-ontology-specification-group/browse_frm/thread/dfcb68d7336394fa?tvc=1&q=Ordered+List+Ontology > especially > > http://groups.google.com/group/music-ontology-specification-group/msg/f7e893c9090a00e2 > [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2010Jun/0173.html > [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2010Jun/0174.html > -- Dr. Paolo Ciccarese http://www.paolociccarese.info/ Biomedical Informatics Research & Development Instructor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School Assistant in Neuroscience at Mass General Hospital +1-857-366-1524 (mobile) +1-617-768-8744 (office) CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the addressee(s), may contain information that is considered to be sensitive or confidential and may not be forwarded or disclosed to any other party without the permission of the sender. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately. |
|
From: Bob F. <za...@sm...> - 2011-03-15 13:24:20
|
Hi Paolo, Am 14.03.2011 15:36, schrieb Paolo Ciccarese: > Dear Bob, > I am happy to see this draft of comparison, I wish we had this > discussion before so we could have a unique model. Yes, of course. Unfortunately, the former discussion (where I announced the Ordered List Ontology [8,9,10]) ended with the result that they both have their right and purpose to exist. That is why, I previously don't investigated efforts into a mixing. > I did not have time to read the document carefully. Therefore, the first > thought are general. > > I've been doing public comparison and alignment work for W3C Working > Groups many times (see for instance http://www.w3.org/TR/hcls-swansioc/ > ) and a good suggestion is to use a wiki first. It is more democratic - > on the contrary of a PDF - and people can fix the mistakes/inaccuracies > rapidly. Otherwise it becomes your personal view on something and will > generate long and time expensive threads of emails. Yes, you are right. Therefore, I set-up a wiki and deployed the content of the PDF document in a wiki page, which can be found at [1]. I hope everybody can get access to it (I guess, you need a sourceforge account for it). Please contact me, if there are any problem (so far I only sometimes noticed time-outs from the sourceforge server, however, this was currently for me the easiest way to set up a wiki). > One example: SWAN Collections, besides the name, is totally general. > There are no project dependencies in the OWL. Yes, however, the abstract is probably a bit deterrently. This text maybe can be put in a background section. > In fact, as I was telling > you by email is used by at least 10 groups that contacted me many times > in the past asking me questions to understand and in order to avoid > creating another collection ontology. These includes: SWAN, FaBIO the > FRBR based bibiliographic ontology, EARMARKS for example... > > Also, you need to define a goal. What is this comparison for? Are you > willing to spend energy to collapse the models? Are you ready eventually > to drop yours? Every time I am starting a comparison process I know it > might end up with dropping my model. For instance that has been the > result of the process for integrating SWAN with CiTO: > http://www.w3.org/wiki/HCLSIG/SWANSIOC/Actions/SWANCiTO . The result has > been to reduce the number of redundant models and have an ongoing > collaboration between the two groups. > > Would you be ready to eventually, if it makes sense, drop your model? > Otherwise I don't see why to start the process as you seem happy with > your model and us with ours. I have no strong opinion, which ontology we should deprecate. Albeit, I can imagine one ontology that includes the modelling capacities of both. So, if we come to an agreement re. the expressiveness of the vocabulary, we can do a mixing and promote this result. The Ordered List Ontology is currently reused (AFAIK) in the Stories Ontology [2,3] and the Sport Ontology [4,5] showed some interest in apply the Ordered List Ontology, too. Besides, I utilized this vocabulary in the Play Back Ontology [6] and the Recommendation Ontology [7]. That is why, changing the latter dependencies wouldn't be such a problem. Finally, I'm quite interested in that the ontology is properly deployed and promoted (I noticed there some drawbacks with the SWAN Collections Ontology). Cheers, Bob [1] https://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/smiy/index.php?title=A_Comparision_of_the_SWAN_Collections_Ontology_and_the_Ordered_List_Ontology [2] http://www.contextus.net/stories/ [3] http://tobyz.net/tobyzstuff/projects/bbcstories [4] http://www.bbc.co.uk/ontologies/sport/2011-02-17.shtml [5] http://twitter.com/silveroliver/status/40712231444287488 [6] http://purl.org/ontology/pbo/core# [7] http://purl.org/ontology/rec/core# [8] http://groups.google.com/group/music-ontology-specification-group/browse_frm/thread/dfcb68d7336394fa?tvc=1&q=Ordered+List+Ontology especially http://groups.google.com/group/music-ontology-specification-group/msg/f7e893c9090a00e2 [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2010Jun/0173.html [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2010Jun/0174.html |
|
From: Paolo C. <pao...@gm...> - 2011-03-14 14:36:20
|
Dear Bob, I am happy to see this draft of comparison, I wish we had this discussion before so we could have a unique model. I did not have time to read the document carefully. Therefore, the first thought are general. I've been doing public comparison and alignment work for W3C Working Groups many times (see for instance http://www.w3.org/TR/hcls-swansioc/ ) and a good suggestion is to use a wiki first. It is more democratic - on the contrary of a PDF - and people can fix the mistakes/inaccuracies rapidly. Otherwise it becomes your personal view on something and will generate long and time expensive threads of emails. One example: SWAN Collections, besides the name, is totally general. There are no project dependencies in the OWL. In fact, as I was telling you by email is used by at least 10 groups that contacted me many times in the past asking me questions to understand and in order to avoid creating another collection ontology. These includes: SWAN, FaBIO the FRBR based bibiliographic ontology, EARMARKS for example... Also, you need to define a goal. What is this comparison for? Are you willing to spend energy to collapse the models? Are you ready eventually to drop yours? Every time I am starting a comparison process I know it might end up with dropping my model. For instance that has been the result of the process for integrating SWAN with CiTO: http://www.w3.org/wiki/HCLSIG/SWANSIOC/Actions/SWANCiTO . The result has been to reduce the number of redundant models and have an ongoing collaboration between the two groups. Would you be ready to eventually, if it makes sense, drop your model? Otherwise I don't see why to start the process as you seem happy with your model and us with ours. Best Paolo On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Bob Ferris <za...@sm...> wrote: > Hello everybody, > > I compiled a comparison of the SWAN Collections Ontology and the Ordered > List Ontology. Please let me know what you think about this comparison. It > is attached as a PDF file to this e-mail. > > Cheers > |
|
From: Bob F. <za...@sm...> - 2011-03-14 12:39:47
|
Hello everybody, I compiled a comparison of the SWAN Collections Ontology and the Ordered List Ontology. Please let me know what you think about this comparison. It is attached as a PDF file to this e-mail. Cheers |
|
From: Bob F. <za...@sm...> - 2011-03-13 23:47:20
|
Hi, I recently had an email exchange with Paolo Ciccarese [1], who is the maintainer of the SWAN Collections Ontology [2]. Thereby, we also discussed the alignment of this ontology with OLO. AFAIK, this issue was already discussed a bit, when I announced the first drafts of OLO (see [3,4,5]). Paolo is quite interested in a mixing of the two ontologies. Here are shortly the main difference between them: - OLO has olo:index as primary access method for slots - OLO has more restrictions on its properties then the equal ones in the SWAN Collections Ontology - the SWAN Collections Ontology has properties for relating transitive slots in a sequence (we initially excluded this feature) - the SWAN Collections Ontology has properties for first/last slot in a sequence (this issue is on the OLO TODO list [6], too, since it was requested) What do you think about a mixing of these two ontologies? Cheers, Bob [1] http://www.paolociccarese.info/ [2] http://swan.mindinformatics.org/spec/1.2/collections.html [3] http://groups.google.com/group/music-ontology-specification-group/browse_frm/thread/dfcb68d7336394fa?tvc=1&q=Ordered+List+Ontology especially http://groups.google.com/group/music-ontology-specification-group/msg/f7e893c9090a00e2 [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2010Jun/0173.html [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2010Jun/0174.html [6] http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3204815&group_id=333907&atid=1399770 |
|
From: Bob F. <za...@sm...> - 2011-02-10 21:04:23
|
This is only a test message. |