Several unintend double negatives and other misuses in my reply reverse my meaning and/or cast doubt on my command of English ... :-( "Hilmar might be able to through some insight on the matter." --> [...] to throw some insight" "signals that insufficient use-case modelling has not been done" --"signals that insufficient [...] has been done"
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Bob Morris morris.bob@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but...
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Gregor Hagedorn g.m.hagedorn@gmail.com wrote:
We are seeking advice in the context of using semantic mediawiki to document terms, at present as an example the taxpub vocabularly, which ontology to use to document the following:
- generic part-of relations of concepts.
Example: the taxpub nomenclature section is part of the taxpub treatment We consider using DublinCore for this. We found nothing in SKOS for this.
- part of relations of things
both petal and sepal are part of the corolla.
Bob Morris recommends the ro ontology: http://obofoundry.org/ro/ However, this one says that it is undergoing strong changes in the near future.
Well, I don't know what "near" means for their future, but the discussion of it petered out over 15 months ago. A very brief glance at that indicates that the initial impetus was mainly to refactor RO, although the discussion seems to raise other points also. Hilmar might be able to through some insight on the matter.
- When documenting legacy xml ontologies, the xml variant requires
documenting a difference between element and attribute children.
How to express this in RDF form? ("why would you want do that" -> Bob Morris likes to answer that, but in fact we just want to have an orthogonal form to simplify things).
Ah, you slightly mis-state my underlying point. I (hope I am) famous for often saying that questions that begin with "Why would anybody ever want to") are forbidden to software engineers, and by extension to ontology engineers. But (when prompted) I always point out that this is a mantra to guard against two things, depending on the state of development:
(a) When bleated, sheeplike, by programmers whose code crashed gracelessly by users who do something unexpected, it almost always signals that the code contains an implicit, unexamined, assumption that a certain use case would never appear. (b) Before development it often signals that insufficient use-case modelling has not been done. So in this case, I literally mean that one needs a clear requirement for modelling the syntax of XML in a semantic modeling language. Phrased that way, I would worry that the impedance mismatches between a set of XML constraints on a document's structure and a set of RDF descriptions of the content of the document might be very high.
Any help or insight is appreciated.
Gregor
--
Dr. G. Hagedorn +49-(0)30-8304 2220 (work) +49-(0)30-831 5785 (private) http://www.linkedin.com/in/gregorhagedorn
This communication (including all attachments) is sent on a personal basis. It is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. Redistributing or publishing it without permission is a violation of privacy rights and copyright.
-- Robert A. Morris
Emeritus Professor of Computer Science UMASS-Boston 100 Morrissey Blvd Boston, MA 02125-3390 IT Staff Filtered Push Project Department of Organismal and Evolutionary Biology Harvard University
email: morris.bob@gmail.com web: http://efg.cs.umb.edu/ web: http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram phone (+1) 857 222 7992 (mobile)