status of part-whole ontology?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

status of part-whole ontology?

Jacek Kopecky

Dear SWBP WG, 8-)

within WS-Description WG we are working on an RDF mapping for the WSDL
components, and we are considering using your Part-whole ontology [1].
Can you please let me know about the current status of this particular
ontology and your plans for it?

We will possibly want to go to Last Call with the RDF mapping around the
Tech Plenary in March, so if the part-whole ontology is planned to be
delivered significantly later (if, indeed, ever), we would not be able
to reuse it.

Best regards,

Jacek Kopecky

[1] http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~rector/swbp/simple-part-whole/simple-part-whole-relations-v0-2.html


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: status of part-whole ontology?

Alan Rector-2

Jacek

As far as I know the note is ready to go modulo a few minor tweaks.  
I think Chris Welty 'has the token'.  There was a delay when his  
machine failed at the Face-to-Face in November, and I suspect  
holidays and other things have meant the document hasn't emerged.

If there is a problem for Chris, I can probably make the few  
necessary changes next month, but he had some alternative examples in  
mind.

No changes in substance are planned.

Regards

Alan

On 18 Jan 2006, at 19:20, Jacek Kopecky wrote:

> Dear SWBP WG, 8-)
>
> within WS-Description WG we are working on an RDF mapping for the WSDL
> components, and we are considering using your Part-whole ontology [1].
> Can you please let me know about the current status of this particular
> ontology and your plans for it?
>
> We will possibly want to go to Last Call with the RDF mapping  
> around the
> Tech Plenary in March, so if the part-whole ontology is planned to be
> delivered significantly later (if, indeed, ever), we would not be able
> to reuse it.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jacek Kopecky
>
> [1] http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~rector/swbp/simple-part-whole/simple- 
> part-whole-relations-v0-2.html
>

-----------------------
Alan Rector
Professor of Medical Informatics
Department of Computer Science
University of Manchester
Manchester M13 9PL, UK
TEL +44 (0) 161 275 6188/6149
FAX +44 (0) 161 275 6204
www.cs.man.ac.uk/mig
www.clinical-esciences.org
www.co-ode.org



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

reuse of part-whole ontology in WSDL RDF mapping

Jacek Kopecky

Alan, thanks for the info, I'm glad the part-whole ontology might move
on. I expect we will reuse it in some way in the WSDL RDF mapping, so
you can count on us for a review as well. 8-)

Can you please give me an estimate of the timing for this ontology? What
is the target status for the ontology? And especially, if we move the
WSDL RDF mapping to last call around the W3C TP in March, do you expect
the part-whole ontology to keep at most a step behind us, so that we can
reuse it without slowing down our already delayed deliverable? 8-)

And I have a guidance question as well:

We have currently a set of classes (e.g. Description, Interface,
Binding) and a set of properties (e.g. interface, binding) that are used
both for pointing from Description to its parts Interface and Binding,
but the "interface" property is also used to point from binding to the
corresponding interface (where there is no part-of relationship). So our
hierarchy is Description at the top which contains Interfaces and
Bindings (among others), and Bindings point to Interfaces (one each) as
well.

In order for us to reuse the part-whole ontology, the links between
Description and the lower level of Interface and Binding must indicate
the is_part_of_directly relationship. I can see 3 different ways in
which we can do this:

     1. when mapping from WSDL (XML) to RDF, we will generate both
        "interface" and "is_part_of_directly" between Description and
        Interface (and similar pairs of statements for the other part-of
        relationships)
     2. in places where a part-of relationship happens, we will replace
        the current named properties with is_part_of_directly, and we
        will keep our named properties (e.g. interface) to point from
        Binding to Interface
     3. we will split "interface" (and the same way for similar
        properties) into two properties - "contains_interface" and
        "interface", the first being subproperty of is_part_of_directly,
        the second used where "interface" is used currently but without
        the part-of meaning

I hope this makes sense. Personally, I don't like either of the options
- the first one shows no relationship between "interface" and
"is_part_of_directly"; the second makes any query for all Interfaces go
one level deeper (to the type of the object of is_part_of_directly), and
the third introduces the two properties, both of which should really be
a single "interface".

Do you have any comments on which approach might be preferable or if
I indeed missed something better?

Best regards,

Jacek

On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 10:04 +0000, Alan Rector wrote:

> Jacek
>
> As far as I know the note is ready to go modulo a few minor tweaks.  
> I think Chris Welty 'has the token'.  There was a delay when his  
> machine failed at the Face-to-Face in November, and I suspect  
> holidays and other things have meant the document hasn't emerged.
>
> If there is a problem for Chris, I can probably make the few  
> necessary changes next month, but he had some alternative examples in  
> mind.
>
> No changes in substance are planned.
>
> Regards
>
> Alan
>
> On 18 Jan 2006, at 19:20, Jacek Kopecky wrote:
>
> > Dear SWBP WG, 8-)
> >
> > within WS-Description WG we are working on an RDF mapping for the WSDL
> > components, and we are considering using your Part-whole ontology [1].
> > Can you please let me know about the current status of this particular
> > ontology and your plans for it?
> >
> > We will possibly want to go to Last Call with the RDF mapping  
> > around the
> > Tech Plenary in March, so if the part-whole ontology is planned to be
> > delivered significantly later (if, indeed, ever), we would not be able
> > to reuse it.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Jacek Kopecky
> >
> > [1] http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~rector/swbp/simple-part-whole/simple- 
> > part-whole-relations-v0-2.html
> >
>
> -----------------------
> Alan Rector
> Professor of Medical Informatics
> Department of Computer Science
> University of Manchester
> Manchester M13 9PL, UK
> TEL +44 (0) 161 275 6188/6149
> FAX +44 (0) 161 275 6204
> www.cs.man.ac.uk/mig
> www.clinical-esciences.org
> www.co-ode.org
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Fwd: reuse of part-whole ontology in WSDL RDF mapping

Alan Rector
Chris

What's the state of this?  I think you have the token.  I could take it back and schedule stuff for after mid Feb if there is a problem.  I am full up until then.

Regards

Alan

PS - there seems to have been some issue with this thread getting to the SWBP list.  If it doesn't end up on the list, please let me know.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jacek Kopecky <[hidden email]>
Date: 21 January 2006 00:37:45 GMT
To: Alan Rector <[hidden email]>
Subject: reuse of part-whole ontology in WSDL RDF mapping

Alan, thanks for the info, I'm glad the part-whole ontology might move
on. I expect we will reuse it in some way in the WSDL RDF mapping, so
you can count on us for a review as well. 8-)

Can you please give me an estimate of the timing for this ontology? What
is the target status for the ontology? And especially, if we move the
WSDL RDF mapping to last call around the W3C TP in March, do you expect
the part-whole ontology to keep at most a step behind us, so that we can
reuse it without slowing down our already delayed deliverable? 8-)

And I have a guidance question as well:

We have currently a set of classes (e.g. Description, Interface,
Binding) and a set of properties (e.g. interface, binding) that are used
both for pointing from Description to its parts Interface and Binding,
but the "interface" property is also used to point from binding to the
corresponding interface (where there is no part-of relationship). So our
hierarchy is Description at the top which contains Interfaces and
Bindings (among others), and Bindings point to Interfaces (one each) as
well.

In order for us to reuse the part-whole ontology, the links between
Description and the lower level of Interface and Binding must indicate
the is_part_of_directly relationship. I can see 3 different ways in
which we can do this:

     1. when mapping from WSDL (XML) to RDF, we will generate both
        "interface" and "is_part_of_directly" between Description and
        Interface (and similar pairs of statements for the other part-of
        relationships)
     2. in places where a part-of relationship happens, we will replace
        the current named properties with is_part_of_directly, and we
        will keep our named properties (e.g. interface) to point from
        Binding to Interface
     3. we will split "interface" (and the same way for similar
        properties) into two properties - "contains_interface" and
        "interface", the first being subproperty of is_part_of_directly,
        the second used where "interface" is used currently but without
        the part-of meaning

I hope this makes sense. Personally, I don't like either of the options
- the first one shows no relationship between "interface" and
"is_part_of_directly"; the second makes any query for all Interfaces go
one level deeper (to the type of the object of is_part_of_directly), and
the third introduces the two properties, both of which should really be
a single "interface".

Do you have any comments on which approach might be preferable or if 
I indeed missed something better?

Best regards,

Jacek

On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 10:04 +0000, Alan Rector wrote:
Jacek

As far as I know the note is ready to go modulo a few minor tweaks.   
I think Chris Welty 'has the token'.  There was a delay when his  
machine failed at the Face-to-Face in November, and I suspect  
holidays and other things have meant the document hasn't emerged.

If there is a problem for Chris, I can probably make the few  
necessary changes next month, but he had some alternative examples in  
mind.

No changes in substance are planned.

Regards

Alan

On 18 Jan 2006, at 19:20, Jacek Kopecky wrote:

Dear SWBP WG, 8-)

within WS-Description WG we are working on an RDF mapping for the WSDL
components, and we are considering using your Part-whole ontology [1].
Can you please let me know about the current status of this particular
ontology and your plans for it?

We will possibly want to go to Last Call with the RDF mapping  
around the
Tech Plenary in March, so if the part-whole ontology is planned to be
delivered significantly later (if, indeed, ever), we would not be able
to reuse it.

Best regards,

Jacek Kopecky

part-whole-relations-v0-2.html


-----------------------
Alan Rector
Professor of Medical Informatics
Department of Computer Science
University of Manchester
Manchester M13 9PL, UK
TEL +44 (0) 161 275 6188/6149
FAX +44 (0) 161 275 6204
www.cs.man.ac.uk/mig
www.clinical-esciences.org
www.co-ode.org



-----------------------
Alan Rector
Professor of Medical Informatics
Department of Computer Science
University of Manchester
Manchester M13 9PL, UK
TEL +44 (0) 161 275 6188/6149
FAX +44 (0) 161 275 6204
www.cs.man.ac.uk/mig
www.clinical-esciences.org
www.co-ode.org

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: reuse of part-whole ontology in WSDL RDF mapping

Christopher Welty

Yes, for parts I have the token.  I will try to do something on it this
week.  I was not able to work last week (death in the family), and now I'm
catching up.

-Chris

Dr. Christopher A. Welty, Knowledge Structures Group
IBM Watson Research Center, 19 Skyline Dr., Hawthorne, NY  10532
Voice: +1 914.784.7055,  IBM T/L: 863.7055, Fax: +1 914.784.7455
Email: [hidden email]
Web: http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty/



Alan Rector <[hidden email]>
01/24/2006 01:47 PM

To
Christopher Welty/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, best-practice list
<[hidden email]>
cc
Debbie McGinness <[hidden email]>
Subject
Fwd: reuse of part-whole ontology in WSDL RDF mapping






Chris

What's the state of this?  I think you have the token.  I could take it
back and schedule stuff for after mid Feb if there is a problem.  I am
full up until then.

Regards

Alan

PS - there seems to have been some issue with this thread getting to the
SWBP list.  If it doesn't end up on the list, please let me know.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jacek Kopecky <[hidden email]>
Date: 21 January 2006 00:37:45 GMT
To: Alan Rector <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email], [hidden email], [hidden email]
Subject: reuse of part-whole ontology in WSDL RDF mapping

Alan, thanks for the info, I'm glad the part-whole ontology might move
on. I expect we will reuse it in some way in the WSDL RDF mapping, so
you can count on us for a review as well. 8-)

Can you please give me an estimate of the timing for this ontology? What
is the target status for the ontology? And especially, if we move the
WSDL RDF mapping to last call around the W3C TP in March, do you expect
the part-whole ontology to keep at most a step behind us, so that we can
reuse it without slowing down our already delayed deliverable? 8-)

And I have a guidance question as well:

We have currently a set of classes (e.g. Description, Interface,
Binding) and a set of properties (e.g. interface, binding) that are used
both for pointing from Description to its parts Interface and Binding,
but the "interface" property is also used to point from binding to the
corresponding interface (where there is no part-of relationship). So our
hierarchy is Description at the top which contains Interfaces and
Bindings (among others), and Bindings point to Interfaces (one each) as
well.

In order for us to reuse the part-whole ontology, the links between
Description and the lower level of Interface and Binding must indicate
the is_part_of_directly relationship. I can see 3 different ways in
which we can do this:

     1. when mapping from WSDL (XML) to RDF, we will generate both
        "interface" and "is_part_of_directly" between Description and
        Interface (and similar pairs of statements for the other part-of
        relationships)
     2. in places where a part-of relationship happens, we will replace
        the current named properties with is_part_of_directly, and we
        will keep our named properties (e.g. interface) to point from
        Binding to Interface
     3. we will split "interface" (and the same way for similar
        properties) into two properties - "contains_interface" and
        "interface", the first being subproperty of is_part_of_directly,
        the second used where "interface" is used currently but without
        the part-of meaning

I hope this makes sense. Personally, I don't like either of the options
- the first one shows no relationship between "interface" and
"is_part_of_directly"; the second makes any query for all Interfaces go
one level deeper (to the type of the object of is_part_of_directly), and
the third introduces the two properties, both of which should really be
a single "interface".

Do you have any comments on which approach might be preferable or if
I indeed missed something better?

Best regards,

Jacek

On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 10:04 +0000, Alan Rector wrote:
Jacek

As far as I know the note is ready to go modulo a few minor tweaks.  
I think Chris Welty 'has the token'.  There was a delay when his  
machine failed at the Face-to-Face in November, and I suspect  
holidays and other things have meant the document hasn't emerged.

If there is a problem for Chris, I can probably make the few  
necessary changes next month, but he had some alternative examples in  
mind.

No changes in substance are planned.

Regards

Alan

On 18 Jan 2006, at 19:20, Jacek Kopecky wrote:

Dear SWBP WG, 8-)

within WS-Description WG we are working on an RDF mapping for the WSDL
components, and we are considering using your Part-whole ontology [1].
Can you please let me know about the current status of this particular
ontology and your plans for it?

We will possibly want to go to Last Call with the RDF mapping  
around the
Tech Plenary in March, so if the part-whole ontology is planned to be
delivered significantly later (if, indeed, ever), we would not be able
to reuse it.

Best regards,

Jacek Kopecky

[1] http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~rector/swbp/simple-part-whole/simple- 
part-whole-relations-v0-2.html


-----------------------
Alan Rector
Professor of Medical Informatics
Department of Computer Science
University of Manchester
Manchester M13 9PL, UK
TEL +44 (0) 161 275 6188/6149
FAX +44 (0) 161 275 6204
www.cs.man.ac.uk/mig
www.clinical-esciences.org
www.co-ode.org



-----------------------
Alan Rector
Professor of Medical Informatics
Department of Computer Science
University of Manchester
Manchester M13 9PL, UK
TEL +44 (0) 161 275 6188/6149
FAX +44 (0) 161 275 6204
www.cs.man.ac.uk/mig
www.clinical-esciences.org
www.co-ode.org



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: status of part-whole ontology?

tianxama
In reply to this post by Jacek Kopecky
Hi,
Don't know if I can help. I'm currently researching semantic techs areas and developed out a simple mechanism for describing part-whole (superPart-part-subPart specifically) ontologies.
It's available in HTML and PDF formats at http://www.simetris.com.ar.
Regards
Jacek Kopecky wrote
Dear SWBP WG, 8-) within WS-Description WG we are working on an RDF mapping for the WSDL components, and we are considering using your Part-whole ontology [1]. Can you please let me know about the current status of this particular ontology and your plans for it? We will possibly want to go to Last Call with the RDF mapping around the Tech Plenary in March, so if the part-whole ontology is planned to be delivered significantly later (if, indeed, ever), we would not be able to reuse it. Best regards, Jacek Kopecky [1] http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~rector/swbp/simple-part-whole/simple-part-whole-relations-v0-2.html