[Crm-sig] Re.: [crm-sig] cidoc 4.2 in owl + alignment to DOLCE-Ultralight PLEASE RESPOND

Guenther Goerz guenther.goerz at gmail.com
Thu Jun 14 01:34:37 EEST 2007


Dear colleagues,

a while ago I wrote to Aldo whether he will continue to work on an OWL
version of the CRM aiming at an upgrade to version 4.2.  At that time
he answered that he was not planning to do that and he sent me the
results of his work on version 3.4.9 to use it for further development
if we like to. I  talked to Martin about that, expressing our interest
to pursue this issue further, but of course avoiding duplicate work.
Martin said that he was not aware of any other group --- including
FORTH ---- already implementing or planning to implement a new OWL
version in the near future. So, we looked for a student and finally
found one who started to work on with a new implementation of 4.2 in
OWL as a study project several months ago.  Now, he is nearly finished
and of course we will make the result of our work --- OWL code and
documentation (in German, sorry) --- available to the community as
soon as it is ready.  Furthermore, we are planning to present it at
the Nuremberg workshop.  So,  I was a bit surprised by Aldo's  last
message --- obviously communication in our community is sort of
suboptimal.  Of course, I strongly support any effort to integrate
everything what has been done so far. Perhaps we should use the
Nuremberg workshop to set up a subgroup aiming at the implementation
of a reference version 4.2+ in OWL; obviously there are several issues
we have to agree on: problems in the current 4.2 document,
representational alternatives, alignment with DOLCE, etc.
Furthermore, we should nominate a coordinator to avoid duplicate work
in the future.

Best regards,
-- Guenther
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Dr. Guenther Goerz            Fon: (+49 9131) 852-8701; -8702
Univ. Erlangen-Nuernberg            Fax: (+49 9131) 852-8986
Institut f. Informatik 8/KI         goerz  AT informatik.uni-erlangen.de
Haberstrasse 2                      ggoerz AT csli.stanford.edu
D-91058 ERLANGEN
               http://www8.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/inf8/en/goerz.html


On 6/13/07, martin <martin at ics.forth.gr> wrote:
> Dear Detlev, Aldo,
>
> I would much appreciate such an effort. We at FORTH would clearly participate.
> Who else would like to participate? PLEASE RESPOND.
> I will put the idea on the issues list, and suggest to discuss details in
> the CRM-SIG meeting Dec. 4-7 in Nuremberg.
>
> Best,
>
> martin
>
> Detlev Balzer wrote:
> > 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
> >>appropriate:
> >>
> >>http://www.loa-cnr.it/ontologies/CIDOC/cidoc_v4.2.owl
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Detlev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Crm-sig mailing list
> > Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
> >
>
>
> --
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>   Dr. Martin Doerr              |  Vox:+30(2810)391625        |
>   Principle Researcher          |  Fax:+30(2810)391638        |
>                                 |  Email: martin at ics.forth.gr |
>                                                               |
>                 Center for Cultural Informatics               |
>                 Information Systems Laboratory                |
>                  Institute of Computer Science                |
>     Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)   |
>                                                               |
>   Vassilika Vouton,P.O.Box1385,GR71110 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
>                                                               |
>           Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl               |
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list