[Ontology] UCDs vs ontologies?

[Brian Thomas]

On Thursday 02 June 2005 10:34 am, Ed Shaya wrote:
> Are these discussions going to be on dm or semantics?  We had better 
> decide fast.  I had spoken with Jonathan just a few days ago and he felt 
> this logically belonged inside of dm.  I agreed with him because 
> Ontology should be a basic component (an early stage) of data modeling.  
> But then Tony Linde reminded me that there already is a semantics site 
> and that is where it belongs.  That makes sense too.  What do others think?

	As 'painfull' as it might be to suggest it, I vote for the DM list (with proper
	subject line, of course, so it may be ignored). Semantics are critical for 
	proper design of data models. 

	=b.t.

> 
> Ed
> 
> 
> 
> Sebastien Derriere wrote:
> 
> >[posted to dm only to avoid cross-posting]
> >
> >Elizabeth Auden wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>Incidentally, I've posted a first go at a VOEvent ontology (OWL-DL format)
> >>on the VOTech wiki at
> >>http://wiki.eurovotech.org/bin/view/VOTech/VoEventOntology. Any comments
> >>on the structure, concepts, and coverage of this v0.000000001 ontology
> >>would be appreciated.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >  Hi,
> >
> >  Reading the questions you list in the above page, I have a comment
> >on points 2 and 3.
> >  When trying to build small ontologies, I found (and still do find)
> >extremely stupid to be "forced" to define one slot dedicated to each
> >class
> >to indicate "hasSomething".
> >  In your example, Contact / hasContact , How / hasHow, What / hasWhat,
> >....
> >I found this (and this is the case in every example I could find) awful.
> >
> >  I wish we could define something where we don't have to be omniscients
> >when building the ontology, but where the ability to make reasonning
> >would
> >not be lost. Something like:
> >  - Having a class named Property
> >  - Having classes Contact, How, What, ... being subclasses of Property
> >(these classes might have many superclasses)
> >  - Having a unique slot "hasProperty" with a value being a Class, with
> >the allowed class "Property" (thus also allowing Property's subclasses)
> >
> >  That way, instead of having to define zillions of slots (i.e. at least
> >one
> >per new subclass of Property) and writing:
> >
> >MyConcept hasContact Contact
> >MyConcept hasHow How
> >MyConcept hasWhat What
> >.... and as many as there are different possible properties
> >
> >we could simply write things like:
> >
> >MyConcept hasProperty Property  (with multiple cardinality, this
> >would cover all the above: no need to predefine all possible cases)
> >
> >  and if we need to be more precise (restrict allowed properties):
> >
> >MyConcept hasProperty (Class with superclass Contact or How or What)
> >
> >  Anyone experienced could tell if my own view is really really
> >wrong? Or incompatible with the way description logics and reasonners
> >work? I hope this could make our lives easier when we stop playing
> >with toy-ontologies and go into the big ones.
> >
> >Sebastien.
> >  
> >
> 

-- 
--------------------------------------
|                                     
| Dr. Brian Thomas                    
|                                     
| Dept of Astronomy                   
| University of Maryland-College Park 
|
| Phone: (301) 405-2312               
| Fax: (301) 314-9067                 
|                                     
--------------------------------------