<< I appreciate your enthusiasm, but going beyond simple broader, narrower,
and related would demand a full-blown re-analysis of the ontological
entries. Frankly, updating content, getting the old entries into rough
correctness and legibility was already enough work.>>
I don't think anyone is suggesting that you do all the work yourself, Rick. If we agree a format then a subgroup of this workgroup should be formed to take the forward.
The question is: whether the extended SKOS is too much work for that subgroup or would substantially delay the creation of the required SV. If not then it would seem worthwhile to develop a more explicit specification than narrower/broader/related, so broaderGeneric, broaderPartitive, broaderInstantive (will we be recording instances in the SV?).
T.
From: owner-semantics-at-eso.org [mailto:owner-semantics-at-eso.org] On Behalf Of
Frederic V. Hessman
Sent: 05 October 2007 15:00
To: Ed Shaya
Cc: IVOA semantics
Subject: Re: IAU thesaurus in RDF (an update)
Don't speak OWL, so If someone will suggest a complete and standard OWL syntax for the entries, I'd be happy to automatically produce an OWL version / include OWL elements as well, as appropriate.
Can you generate a version with the extended SKOS:
skos:broaderPartitive (PartOf) skos:broaderGeneric (subClassOf) skos:broaderInstantive (InstanceOf, ie the unique physical object likeZZ_Ceti, as opposed to ZZ_Ceti_star)
If so, then I can convert to a full blown OWL Ontology with 3 commands in vim. At this point it would be valid but missing the properties between PhysicalObjects and their Measurements. This has to be done manually, I suppose.
Then with a couple of button presses, I can split it into a bunch of reasonably sized namespaced files. I was thinking most skos:broader items, like spectral_lines, could form separate namespaces.
So, we are talking now about having 3 versions, all meant to be official: extended SKOS, SKOS/OWL (just add <owl></owl> and <import skos.owl/>), and OWL (where terms become classes). A script can be written to go from the OWL to SKOS. The other direction loses information.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but going beyond simple broader, narrower, and related would demand a full-blown re-analysis of the ontological entries. Frankly, updating content, getting the old entries into rough correctness and legibility was already enough work.
Sounds like extended SKOS is so OWLish, that those wanting real ontological info would be happy to have the OWL version (which one could slowly mold into the right ontological form). The bare-bones SKOS looks like a token list to me, and that's all I'm interested at first.
How about micro-OWLness as a start? Again, if someone would tell me explicitly what OWL-ish entries you like......
Rick
Dr. Frederic V. Hessman Hessman-at-Astro.physik.Uni-Goettingen.DE Institut für Astrophysik Tel. +49-551-39-5052 Friedrich-Hund-Platz 1 Fax +49-551-39-5043 37077 Goettingen Room F04-133http://www.Astro.physik.Uni-Goettingen.de/~hessman
http://monet.Uni-Goettingen.deReceived on 2007-10-05Z17:20:26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------