[Ontology] UCDs vs ontologies?

[Tony Linde]

Semantics, ontologies and the like could usefully be claimed by the UCD, DM
or Registry workgroups (and I daresay others if they put their minds to it
:) ).

The Semantics IG is the right place within the IVOA lists for discussions
about this area of *interest*. 

If there are specific standards that need to be developed, we will raise
them with the appropriate workgroup, or, if no such workgroup exists, with
the exec with a view to creating a new workgroup.

Cheers,
Tony. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-semantics at eso.org 
> [mailto:owner-semantics at eso.org] On Behalf Of Ed Shaya
> Sent: 02 June 2005 15:34
> Cc: dm at ivoa.net; semantics at ivoa.net
> Subject: Re: [Ontology] UCDs vs ontologies?
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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.
> >  
> >
> 
>