[Ontology] UCDs vs ontologies?

[Gerard Lemson]

I agree with Brian (yes, really :) ) and am interested in
contributing. One year ago it was suggested that a special sub-topic
[Domain] would be added to the dm discussions to deal with the
domain-modeling efforts some of us had been working on. As I see it that
subject really is a particular approach to the whole ontology/semantics
discussions and should maybe find its place there ?

Gerard

--
* Gerard Lemson                       * Tel: +49 (0)89 30000-3316
*
* MPI fuer extraterrestische Physik   * Fax: +49 (0)89 30000-3569
*
* Giessenbachstrasse                  *
*
* Postfach 1312                       *
*
* D-85741 Garching, GERMANY           * email: gerard.lemson at mpe.mpg.de
*


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dm at eso.org [mailto:owner-dm at eso.org]On Behalf Of Brian
> Thomas
> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 5:09 PM
> To: dm at ivoa.net
> Subject: Re: [Ontology] UCDs vs ontologies?
>
>
> 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
> |
> --------------------------------------
>