[Crm-sig] Re.: [crm-sig] cidoc 4.2 in owl + alignment to DOLCE-Ultralight
db at dbalzer.net
Wed Jun 13 10:29:23 EEST 2007
Aldo Gangemi wrote:
> Dear CRM specialists, I'd like to point you at a new OWL version of
> CIDOC 4.2, which I have produced for other purposes. It is based on the
> official RDFS version, and besides the semantic translation, it only
> includes a guess about the datatypes used in some CIDOC properties.
> Please refer to file documentation for details (I've put it in a ftp
> area of my lab, but if you find it useful, please copy it where
I like the idea of expressing alignments between ontologies
using OWL constructs such as equivalentClass.
However, a straight automatic translation from RDFS to OWL misses
the opportunity to formalize some of the (textual) definitions
from the CIDOC CRM that cannot be expressed in RDF Schema.
Wouldn't it be useful to include some more definitions (explicit
and implicit) from the reference model? As an example, pairs of
inverse properties are identified by the letters B and F appended
to the numerical part of the property name. This is mnemonics for
humans, but not easily processed by machines. However, it can
easily be made processable by using the owl:inverseOf statement.
There are further examples such as the disjointness of some
classes (explicitly mentioned in the text) or the transitivity of
some properties (e.g. P120F.occurs_before). One could go even further
and declare P57F.has_number_of_parts as owl:FunctionalProperty,
assuming that no instance of E19.Physical_Object can consist of
different numbers of parts at a given time.
How does the SIG think about a coordinated effort that would
eventually result in an official OWL representation of the model?
Some work has already been done and I think it shouldn't be too
hard to reach a consensus on what to express in OWL language
constructs, and what to leave out.
More information about the Crm-sig