'Ontology Design Patterns' - User contributions [en]

Reviews:BenedictoRodriguezCastro about TransportPattern

2013-08-10T13:14:29Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{Content OP Proposal Review Template
|SubmittedBy=BenedictoRodriguezCastro
|ContentOPUnderReview=TransportPattern
|RevisionID=11661
|CreationDate=2013/8/10
|Score=0 - needs major revision
|ReviewSummary=Note to Program Committee:

This "Review Summary" is the same as uploaded to EasyChair based on the 4.5 pages paper submitted by the authors. The rating of -1 (weak accept) on EasyChair or 0 (needs minor revision) here is based on the content of the paper. The content submitted on this Web portal for this pattern is very poor and leans toward a rating of -1 (reject).

---

Note to authors:

PLEASE, POPULATE THE CONTENTS OF THE PAPER ON THE CORRESPONDING FIELDS ON THE SUBMISSION PAGE OF THIS WEB PORTAL.

---

This pattern submission introduces an Ontology Design Pattern (ODP) for the concept of "Transport" in the domain of Geosciences. The meaning of the concept of "Transport" intended to be modeled is defined. The main elements of the pattern are introduced together with their role and function. The pattern is characterized in general terms so that it could be applied to other domains as well. The authors provide an example of how some of the core elements of the pattern can be extended to represent additional aspects associated with the notion of a "transport event".

The strengths and weaknesses of the submission are summarized below:

- The Transport ODP is highly relevant to the workshop because the topics discussed fall well within the scope of the WOP event.

- The readability of the submission is clear. The originality and contribution of the pattern can be seen as novel because, although anchored as an extension to the Semantic Web for Earth and Environmental Terminology (SWEET) ontology, the proposed representation of the concept of "Transport" as defined in the submission, is new.

- The discussion of related work can be significantly improved because, although the submission mentions other ontologies that the pattern extends (i.e. SWEET) or that it can be linked to (i.e. SOS, or GML), it does not state explicitly whether there have been (or not) previous efforts at representing in a Web ontology, the same notion of "Transport" put forward by the authors.

- The potential practical utility of the proposed approach is very promising because the pattern is defined in general terms and its representation of a "transport event" could be applied to many domains. However, the documentation of the pattern in the submission hampers its utility because there is not a simple full example of a "transport event" illustrating the instantiation of all elements of the pattern. Some "transport event" examples are mentioned (i.e. river flow, air travel) but the instantiation of the pattern is left to the intuition of the reader. Other examples stated can be complex for those not familiar with their particular domain (osmosis, diffusion, etc.).

- The generic schema of the pattern, the naming convention of the core elements and its graphical representations are misleading or unclear because:
(a) the names given in the narrative do not align the names given to the corresponding object in the figure (i .e. transportEvent, vs. TransportEvent or referenceFrame vs. ReferenceFrame - which one is it?);
(b) the same object in the figure is used to represent classes and properties (both Transport-, and ReferenceFrame are round boxes);
(c) what does the arrow "propertyOf" in Figure 1 represents? It is not addressed;
(d) what do the different colors chosen in Figure 2 represent? and
(e) the choice of the "partOf" relation between core classes in the pattern is never discussed.

- The implementation of the pattern provided in [1] seems to contain a bug, likely due to the naming issues identified above. The domain and range in the definition of the property :referenceFrame in [1] is set to the URI :transportEvent (low-case 't'), which is not explicitly defined as a class in the .owl file. However, the URI :TransportEvent (upper-case 'T') is.

[1] https://wiki.auckland.ac.nz/download/attachments/52016791/TransportPattern.owl

- In terms of evaluation, the authors acknowledged how it could be approached but as stated earlier, there are no clear or real concrete examples of full instantiations of the pattern. Figure 2 suggests how the pattern can be populated or extended but the concepts used (osmosis, diffusion, percolation, etc.) may not be the ideal introductory example as they represent very specific domains and certain degree of experience in them may be required.

Overall, a very interesting pattern for a modeling scenario (a transport event) very prevalent in the real world. Even though there are several aspects of the pattern that should be improved in terms of documentation and exemplification as outlined above, the essential conceptualization of the pattern is valid and it could prove an interesting point of discussion at the WOP event. Thus, the recommended rating is 0 (needs major revision) (which I am equating to a -1 -weak reject- on EasyChair).
|ReviewConfidence=- The confidence level regarding the OWL idioms involved in the pattern is high.
- The confidence level of the application domain as it is discussed in the paper submission (transport event, active/passive transport, etc.) is fair.
|ReviewProblems=See section "Review Summary".
|ReviewRelevance=See section "Review Summary".
|ReviewBestPractice=See section "Review Summary".
|ReviewReusability=See section "Review Summary".
|ReviewRelations=See section "Review Summary".
|ReviewUnderstandability=See section "Review Summary".
|ReviewClearProblem=See section "Review Summary".
|ReviewClearRelevance=See section "Review Summary".
|ReviewFigures=See section "Review Summary".
|ReviewMissing=See section "Review Summary".
}}

Reviews:BenedictoRodriguezCastro about TransportPattern

2013-08-10T13:14:01Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{Content OP Proposal Review Template
|SubmittedBy=BenedictoRodriguezCastro
|ContentOPUnderReview=TransportPattern
|RevisionID=11661
|CreationDate=2013/8/10
|Score=0 - needs major revision
|ReviewSummary=Note to Program Committee:
This "Review Summary" is the same as uploaded to EasyChair based on the 4.5 pages paper submitted by the authors. The rating of -1 (weak accept) on EasyChair or 0 (needs minor revision) here is based on the content of the paper. The content submitted on this Web portal for this pattern is very poor and leans toward a rating of -1 (reject).
---
Note to authors:
PLEASE, POPULATE THE CONTENTS OF THE PAPER ON THE CORRESPONDING FIELDS ON THE SUBMISSION PAGE OF THIS WEB PORTAL.
---

This pattern submission introduces an Ontology Design Pattern (ODP) for the concept of "Transport" in the domain of Geosciences. The meaning of the concept of "Transport" intended to be modeled is defined. The main elements of the pattern are introduced together with their role and function. The pattern is characterized in general terms so that it could be applied to other domains as well. The authors provide an example of how some of the core elements of the pattern can be extended to represent additional aspects associated with the notion of a "transport event".

The strengths and weaknesses of the submission are summarized below:

- The Transport ODP is highly relevant to the workshop because the topics discussed fall well within the scope of the WOP event.

- The readability of the submission is clear. The originality and contribution of the pattern can be seen as novel because, although anchored as an extension to the Semantic Web for Earth and Environmental Terminology (SWEET) ontology, the proposed representation of the concept of "Transport" as defined in the submission, is new.

- The discussion of related work can be significantly improved because, although the submission mentions other ontologies that the pattern extends (i.e. SWEET) or that it can be linked to (i.e. SOS, or GML), it does not state explicitly whether there have been (or not) previous efforts at representing in a Web ontology, the same notion of "Transport" put forward by the authors.

- The potential practical utility of the proposed approach is very promising because the pattern is defined in general terms and its representation of a "transport event" could be applied to many domains. However, the documentation of the pattern in the submission hampers its utility because there is not a simple full example of a "transport event" illustrating the instantiation of all elements of the pattern. Some "transport event" examples are mentioned (i.e. river flow, air travel) but the instantiation of the pattern is left to the intuition of the reader. Other examples stated can be complex for those not familiar with their particular domain (osmosis, diffusion, etc.).

- The generic schema of the pattern, the naming convention of the core elements and its graphical representations are misleading or unclear because:
(a) the names given in the narrative do not align the names given to the corresponding object in the figure (i .e. transportEvent, vs. TransportEvent or referenceFrame vs. ReferenceFrame - which one is it?);
(b) the same object in the figure is used to represent classes and properties (both Transport-, and ReferenceFrame are round boxes);
(c) what does the arrow "propertyOf" in Figure 1 represents? It is not addressed;
(d) what do the different colors chosen in Figure 2 represent? and
(e) the choice of the "partOf" relation between core classes in the pattern is never discussed.

- The implementation of the pattern provided in [1] seems to contain a bug, likely due to the naming issues identified above. The domain and range in the definition of the property :referenceFrame in [1] is set to the URI :transportEvent (low-case 't'), which is not explicitly defined as a class in the .owl file. However, the URI :TransportEvent (upper-case 'T') is.

[1] https://wiki.auckland.ac.nz/download/attachments/52016791/TransportPattern.owl

- In terms of evaluation, the authors acknowledged how it could be approached but as stated earlier, there are no clear or real concrete examples of full instantiations of the pattern. Figure 2 suggests how the pattern can be populated or extended but the concepts used (osmosis, diffusion, percolation, etc.) may not be the ideal introductory example as they represent very specific domains and certain degree of experience in them may be required.

Overall, a very interesting pattern for a modeling scenario (a transport event) very prevalent in the real world. Even though there are several aspects of the pattern that should be improved in terms of documentation and exemplification as outlined above, the essential conceptualization of the pattern is valid and it could prove an interesting point of discussion at the WOP event. Thus, the recommended rating is 0 (needs major revision) (which I am equating to a -1 -weak reject- on EasyChair).
|ReviewConfidence=- The confidence level regarding the OWL idioms involved in the pattern is high.
- The confidence level of the application domain as it is discussed in the paper submission (transport event, active/passive transport, etc.) is fair.
|ReviewProblems=See section "Review Summary".
|ReviewRelevance=See section "Review Summary".
|ReviewBestPractice=See section "Review Summary".
|ReviewReusability=See section "Review Summary".
|ReviewRelations=See section "Review Summary".
|ReviewUnderstandability=See section "Review Summary".
|ReviewClearProblem=See section "Review Summary".
|ReviewClearRelevance=See section "Review Summary".
|ReviewFigures=See section "Review Summary".
|ReviewMissing=See section "Review Summary".
}}

Reviews:BenedictoRodriguezCastro about TransportPattern

2013-08-10T02:08:51Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro: New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2013/8/10 |SubmittedBy=BenedictoRodriguezCastro |ContentOPUnderReview=TransportPattern |RevisionID=11661 |Score=1 - needs minor revision...

{{Content OP Proposal Review Template
|CreationDate=2013/8/10
|SubmittedBy=BenedictoRodriguezCastro
|ContentOPUnderReview=TransportPattern
|RevisionID=11661
|Score=1 - needs minor revision
|ReviewSummary=Note to Program Committee:
This "Review Summary" is the same as uploaded to EasyChair based on the 4.5 pages paper submitted by the authors. The rating of 1 ("weak accept" or "needs minor revision") is based on the content of the paper. The content submitted on this Web portal for this pattern is very poor and leans toward a rating of -1 (reject).
---
Note to authors:
PLEASE, POPULATE THE CONTENTS OF THE PAPER ON THE CORRESPONDING FIELDS ON THE SUBMISSION PAGE OF THIS WEB PORTAL.
---

This pattern submission introduces an Ontology Design Pattern (ODP) for the concept of "Transport" in the domain of Geosciences. The meaning of the concept of "Transport" intended to be modeled is defined. The main elements of the pattern are introduced together with their role and function. The pattern is characterized in general terms so that it could be applied to other domains as well. The authors provide an example of how some of the core elements of the pattern can be extended to represent additional aspects associated with the notion of a "transport event".

The strengths and weaknesses of the submission are summarized below:

- The Transport ODP is highly relevant to the workshop because the topics discussed fall well within the scope of the WOP event.

- The readability of the submission is clear. The originality and contribution of the pattern can be seen as novel because, although anchored as an extension to the Semantic Web for Earth and Environmental Terminology (SWEET) ontology, the proposed representation of the concept of "Transport" as defined in the submission, is new.

- The discussion of related work can be significantly improved because, although the submission mentions other ontologies that the pattern extends (i.e. SWEET) or that it can be linked to (i.e. SOS, or GML), it does not state explicitly whether there have been (or not) previous efforts at representing in a Web ontology, the same notion of "Transport" put forward by the authors.

- The potential practical utility of the proposed approach is very promising because the pattern is defined in general terms and its representation of a "transport event" could be applied to many domains. However, the documentation of the pattern in the submission hampers its utility because there is not a simple full example of a "transport event" illustrating the instantiation of all elements of the pattern. Some "transport event" examples are mentioned (i.e. river flow, air travel) but the instantiation of the pattern is left to the intuition of the reader. Other examples stated can be complex for those not familiar with their particular domain (osmosis, diffusion, etc.).

- The generic schema of the pattern, the naming convention of the core elements and its graphical representations are misleading or unclear because:
(a) the names given in the narrative do not align the names given to the corresponding object in the figure (i .e. transportEvent, vs. TransportEvent or referenceFrame vs. ReferenceFrame - which one is it?);
(b) the same object in the figure is used to represent classes and properties (both Transport-, and ReferenceFrame are round boxes);
(c) what does the arrow "propertyOf" in Figure 1 represents? It is not addressed;
(d) what do the different colors chosen in Figure 2 represent? and
(e) the choice of the "partOf" relation between core classes in the pattern is never discussed.

- The implementation of the pattern provided in [1] seems to contain a bug, likely due to the naming issues identified above. The domain and range in the definition of the property :referenceFrame in [1] is set to the URI :transportEvent (low-case 't'), which is not explicitly defined as a class in the .owl file. However, the URI :TransportEvent (upper-case 'T') is.

[1] https://wiki.auckland.ac.nz/download/attachments/52016791/TransportPattern.owl

- In terms of evaluation, the authors acknowledged how it could be approached but as stated earlier, there are no clear or real concrete examples of full instantiations of the pattern. Figure 2 suggests how the pattern can be populated or extended but the concepts used (osmosis, diffusion, percolation, etc.) may not be the ideal introductory example as they represent very specific domains and certain degree of experience in them may be required.

Overall, a very interesting pattern for a modeling scenario (a transport event) very prevalent in the real world. Even though there are several aspects of the pattern that should be improved in terms of documentation and exemplification as outlined above, the essential conceptualization of the pattern is valid and it could prove an interesting point of discussion at the WOP event. Thus, the recommended rating is 1 (weak accept).
|ReviewConfidence=- The confidence level regarding the OWL idioms involved in the pattern is high.
- The confidence level of the application domain as it is discussed in the paper submission (transport event, active/passive transport, etc.) is fair.
|ReviewProblems=See section "Review Summary".
|ReviewRelevance=See section "Review Summary".

|ReviewBestPractice=See section "Review Summary".
|ReviewReusability=See section "Review Summary".
|ReviewRelations=See section "Review Summary".
|ReviewUnderstandability=See section "Review Summary".
|ReviewClearProblem=See section "Review Summary".
|ReviewClearRelevance=See section "Review Summary".
|ReviewFigures=See section "Review Summary".
|ReviewMissing=See section "Review Summary".
}}

Reviews:BenedictoRodriguezCastro about Object with states

2013-08-08T12:55:21Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro: Replacing page with '{{Content OP Proposal Review Template |SubmittedBy=BenedictoRodriguezCastro |ContentOPUnderReview=Object with states |RevisionID=11667 |CreationDate=2013/8/8 |Score=1 - needs m...'

{{Content OP Proposal Review Template
|SubmittedBy=BenedictoRodriguezCastro
|ContentOPUnderReview=Object with states
|RevisionID=11667
|CreationDate=2013/8/8
|Score=1 - needs minor revision
|ReviewSummary=See:

http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Reviews:BenedictoRodriguezCastro_about_Object_with_states_2
|ReviewConfidence=See:

http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Reviews:BenedictoRodriguezCastro_about_Object_with_states_2
}}

Reviews:BenedictoRodriguezCastro about Object with states 2

2013-08-08T12:52:56Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro: New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2013/8/8 |SubmittedBy=BenedictoRodriguezCastro |ContentOPUnderReview=Object with states |RevisionID=11667 |Score=1 - needs minor revisio...

{{Content OP Proposal Review Template
|CreationDate=2013/8/8
|SubmittedBy=BenedictoRodriguezCastro
|ContentOPUnderReview=Object with states
|RevisionID=11667
|Score=1 - needs minor revision
|ReviewSummary=The pattern "Objects with States" (OWS) proposes a solution to the modeling scenario in which an object may go through a series of different states, and for each given state different restrictions and implications may apply.

The proposed pattern addresses a very recurrent modeling scenario in real world Web applications and puts forward a generic solution, domain-independent with a promising potential for reusability. In terms of functionality, the pattern submitted addresses the targeted modeling scenario. On the other hand, in terms of description and documentation, there are some important aspects captured in the rest of this report that in my view have not been sufficiently documented and discussed.

Overall, I think this pattern fits very well the WOP workshop and can provide a very interesting topic of discussion among participants. I would recommend a rating of 1 ("weak accept" or "needs minor revision").

|ReviewConfidence=The pattern is described in general terms and the solution is applicable and relevant to many domains. The assessment of the pattern requires a good understanding of OWL modeling idioms, especially those involved in the Value Partition pattern, but no expertise in a particular application domain. In that sense, in a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is "no confidence" and 5 is "expert", for this particular pattern, I would rate my confidence as 5.

|ReviewProblems=See sections:

- "Relation to Other Patterns",

- "Overall Understandability",

- "Clear Relevance and Consequences",

- "Clear Figures and Illustrations", and

- "Missing information".
|ReviewRelevance=The scenario described is very frequent in real world Web applications and makes the pattern very relevant to the WOP workshop and the Ontology Engineering community.

|ReviewBestPractice=The pattern can be seen as a best practice for the modeling scenario described.

|ReviewReusability=The pattern is given in general terms and is not dependent on any particular domain. In this sense, the potential for reusability is very promising.

|ReviewRelations=As the author points out, the "Objects with states" (OWS) pattern is related to the Value Partition (VP) pattern given that the latter is used to model part of the elements in the former.

However, I believe that the relation between the two is stronger than the author states. In fact I believe that "Objects with states" could be seen as simply an extension of the VP pattern because the parallelism between the two goes beyond what it is discussed in the submission.

For example, consider the graphocal representation of the OWS pattern given in the submission and Figure 1 in the VP pattern introduced at: http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-specified-values/

The following functional equivalences between the elements of both patterns (where functional equivalences refers to elements that perform the same or analogous function) could be identified:

- The State class partition (and its 3 individuals) is analogous to the Health_Value class partition (and its 3 individuals).

- The has_state property is analogous to the has_health_status property.

- The Object class is analogous to the Person class.

- The ObjectStateA, -B, -C classes are analogous to the class Healty_Person and to the hypothetical classes Medium_Health_Person, Poor_Health_Person respectively if the last two were to be declared in the VP partition (which in Figure 1 are not).

Up to this point the OWS pattern can be seen as an instantiation of the VP pattern for a particular modeling scenario. The novelty of the OWS, where it extends the VP pattern, comes from these additional requirements:

- The OWS pattern requires a subclass of Object (ObjectStateA, -B, -C) for every individual of type State, while the VP pattern does not.

- The Object class is the disjoint union of its subclasses (which can be seen also as a VP pattern in itself as per Figure 2 in http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-specified-values/). This characteristic is not required by the VP pattern (i.e. Person does not have to be the disjoint union of Healty_Person, etc.).

- The additional properties p1, p2, p3, etc. introduced to characterize the implications of an object being in a given state.

- The cardinality constraints in all object properties.

Conversely, there is a key feature in the VP pattern that in the version of the OWS submitted is not present or discussed. That is:

- The class Healthy_Person includes an owl:equivalentClass axiom that allows a standard DL-reasoner to classify all individuals of type Person whose value for has_health_status is good_health as individuals of type Healthy_Person as well.

- Analogous inferences would be possible for individuals of type Object. They could be automatically classified as individuals of the corresponding ObjectStateA, -B, -C class, if these classes were to follow an implementation analogous to Healthy_Person (replacing the applicable rdfs:subClassOf axiom for a owl:equivalentClass).

I believe the comparative analysis above between the OWS pattern and the VP pattern is relevant and it will improve the clarity and potential reusability of the OWS pattern.

|ReviewUnderstandability=The understandability of the pattern is acceptable but it can be highly improved as per comments in sections:

- "Relation to Other Patterns",

- "Clear Relevance and Consequences",

- "Clear Figures and Illustrations", and

- "Missing information".

|ReviewClearProblem=The description of the problem is clear.

|ReviewClearRelevance=The relevance and consequences are not discussed. These two aspects could be addressed providing some background and overall outlook of how this object with states modeling scenario have been handled (if at all) prior to the proposed solution by the author. What were the main shortcomings of those previous approaches?

|ReviewFigures=The graphical representation of the generic OWS pattern submitted is adequate. It captures the relevant elements that participate in the realization of the pattern.

However, consider also adding a graphical representation of a specific example that instantiates the pattern. The submission already provides a textual description of such specific example in the context of software defects, yet a graphical representation will illustrate how the generic elements of the pattern map to the elements in the example.

This is considered a good practice for the documentation of design patterns in general.

|ReviewMissing=Firstly, see sections:

- "Relation to Other Patterns",

- "Overall Understandability",

- "Clear Relevance and Consequences",

- "Clear Figures and Illustrations", and

And one more consideration. A known use case is provided in the form of an alm-istack.owl file. Please, consider providing a textual description to highlight the main aspects of this particular known use case with respect to the proposed pattern. At a glance, it seems that the pattern is instantiated several times in the .owl use case provided. Consider describing these different instantiations and how the main generic elements have been populated.

}}

Reviews:BenedictoRodriguezCastro about Object with states

2013-08-08T12:47:56Z

{{Content OP Proposal Review Template
|CreationDate=2013/8/8
|SubmittedBy=BenedictoRodriguezCastro
|ContentOPUnderReview=Object with states
|RevisionID=11667
|Score=1 - needs minor revision
|ReviewSummary=The pattern "Objects with States" (OWS) proposes a solution to the modeling scenario in which an object may go through a series of different states, and for each given state different restrictions and implications may apply.

The proposed pattern addresses a very recurrent modeling scenario in real world Web applications and puts forward a generic solution, domain-independent, with a promising potential for reusability. In terms of functionality, the pattern submitted addresses the targeted modeling scenario. On the other hand, in terms of description and documentation, there are some important aspects captured in the rest of this report that in my view have not been sufficiently documented and discussed.

Overall, I think the pattern fits very well the WOP workshop and can provide a very interesting topic of discussion among participants. I would recommend a rating of 1 ("weak accept" or "needs minor revision").

|ReviewConfidence=The pattern is described in general terms and the solution is applicable and relevant to any domain. The assessment of the pattern requires a good understanding of OWL modeling idioms, especially those involved in the Value Partition pattern, but no expertise in a particular application domain. In that sense, in a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is "no confidence" and 5 is "expert", for this particular pattern, I would rate my confidence as 5.

|ReviewProblems=See sections:
- "Relation to Other Patterns",
- "Overall Understandability",
- "Clear Relevance and Consequences",
- "Clear Figures and Illustrations", and
- "Missing information".

|ReviewRelevance=The scenario described is very frequent in real world Web applications and makes the pattern very relevant to the WOP workshop and the Ontology Engineering community.

|ReviewBestPractice=The pattern can be seen as a best practice for the modeling scenario described.

|ReviewReusability=The pattern is given in general terms and is not dependent on any particular domain. In this sense, the potential for reusability is very promising.

|ReviewRelations=As the author points out, the "Objects with states" (OWS) pattern is related to the Value Partition (VP) pattern given that the latter is used to model part of the elements in the former.

However, I believe that the relation between the two is stronger than the author states. In fact I believe that "Objects with states" could be seen as simply an extension of the VP pattern because the parallelism between the two goes beyond what it is discussed in the submission.

For example, consider the graphocal representation of the OWS pattern given in the submission and Figure 1 in the VP pattern introduced at: http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-specified-values/

The following functional equivalences between the elements of both patterns (where functional equivalences refers to elements that perform the same or analogous function) could be identified:

- The State class partition (and its 3 individuals) is analogous to the Health_Value class partition (and its 3 individuals).
- The has_state property is analogous to the has_health_status property.
- The Object class is analogous to the Person class.
- The ObjectStateA, -B, -C classes are analogous to the class Healty_Person and to the hypothetical classes Medium_Health_Person, Poor_Health_Person respectively if the last two were to be declared in the VP partition (which in Figure 1 are not).

Up to this point the OWS pattern can be seen as an instantiation of the VP pattern for a particular modeling scenario. The novelty of the OWS, where it extends the VP pattern, comes from these additional requirements:

- The OWS pattern requires a subclass of Object (ObjectStateA, -B, -C) for every individual of type State, while the VP pattern does not.
- The Object class is the disjoint union of its subclasses (which can be seen also as a VP pattern in itself as per Figure 2 in http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-specified-values/). This characteristic is not required by the VP pattern (i.e. Person does not have to be the disjoint union of Healty_Person, etc.).
- The additional properties p1, p2, p3, etc. introduced to characterize the implications of an object being in a given state.
- The cardinality constraints in all object properties.

Conversely, there is a key feature in the VP pattern that in the version of the OWS submitted is not present or discussed. That is:

- The class Healthy_Person includes an owl:equivalentClass axiom that allows a standard DL-reasoner to classify all individuals of type Person whose value for has_health_status is good_health as individuals of type Healthy_Person as well.
- Analogous inferences would be possible for individuals of type Object. They could be automatically classified as individuals of the corresponding ObjectStateA, -B, -C class, if these classes were to follow an implementation analogous to Healthy_Person (replacing the applicable rdfs:subClassOf axiom for a owl:equivalentClass).

I believe the comparative analysis above between the OWS pattern and the VP pattern is relevant and it will improve the clarity and potential reusability of the OWS pattern.

|ReviewUnderstandability=The understandability of the pattern is acceptable but it can be highly improved as per comments in sections:
- "Relation to Other Patterns",
- "Clear Relevance and Consequences",
- "Clear Figures and Illustrations", and
- "Missing information".

|ReviewClearProblem=The description of the problem is clear.

|ReviewClearRelevance=The relevance and consequences are not discussed. These two aspects could be addressed providing some background and overall outlook of how this object with states modeling scenario have been handled (if at all) prior to the proposed solution by the author. What were the main shortcomings of those previous approaches?

|ReviewFigures=The graphical representation of the generic OWS pattern submitted is adequate. It captures the relevant elements that participate in the realization of the pattern.

However, consider also adding a graphical representation of a specific example that instantiates the pattern. The submission already provides a textual description of such specific example in the context of software defects, yet a graphical representation will illustrate how the generic elements of the pattern map to the elements in the example.

This is considered a good practice for the documentation of design patterns in general.

|ReviewMissing=Firstly, see sections:
- "Relation to Other Patterns",
- "Overall Understandability",
- "Clear Relevance and Consequences",
- "Clear Figures and Illustrations", and

And one more consideration. A known use case is provided in the form of an alm-istack.owl file. Please, consider providing a textual description to highlight the main aspects of this particular known use case with respect to the proposed pattern. At a glance, it seems that the pattern is instantiated several times in the .owl use case provided. Consider describing these different instantiations and how the main generic elements have been populated.

}}

Reviews:BenedictoRodriguezCastro about Template Instance

2012-08-28T17:24:15Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{Content OP Proposal Review Template
|SubmittedBy=BenedictoRodriguezCastro
|ContentOPUnderReview=Template Instance
|RevisionID=11158
|CreationDate=2012/8/28
|Score=0 - needs major revision
|ReviewSummary=This pattern describes how to reify a reoccurring set of instances in a given ontology model. The pattern allows to minimize the number of times that the reoccurring instances need to be instantiated in the ontology model by creating the notion of an "instance template".
|ReviewConfidence=High. The pattern is given only in abstract terms. It is applicable to any domain. Domain-specific knowledge is not needed.
|ReviewProblems=The description of the pattern in abstract terms appears as a very insteresting optimization to avoid the unnecessary repetition of a set of instances that occur multiple times in the ontology model. In that sense, it is a very useful and practical modelling idiom.
On the other hand, there are some aspects that hinders the applicability and understandability of the pattern, such as: (a) lack of a concrete example of the pattern supported by a corresponding graphical representation (b) the reusable building block in OWL provided contains only the annotation property mentioned in the pattern (c) the examples OWL files also refer to the implementation of the pattern in abstract terms (d) the known uses provided simply point to the landing website of two medical classifications but it is not clear how the pattern is actually used by these classification resources.
Therefore, because of the reasons above, I would recommend to provide a major revision of the pattern to address them.
|ReviewRelevance=Upfront, the modelling scenario addressed comes accross as very likely to occur and therefore the pattern can be very relevant to the community.
|ReviewReusability=Provided the missing information outlined throughout the review is given, the pattern can be highly reusable.
|ReviewRelations=The relation to the "Literal Reification" pattern (http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Submissions:Literal_Reification) given by the authors seems appropriate.
|ReviewUnderstandability=There is opportunity to improve the understandability by providing a concrete example of the pattern in addition to the abstract one.
|ReviewClearProblem=The problem can be also better characterized by giving a clear real world example of the modelling problem addresed.
|ReviewFigures=The illustrations provided are very helpful. But again, lack of illustrations of a concrete example are missing.
|ReviewMissing=In addition to the various issues mentioned throughout the review, the authors refer to the notion of "immutable" to mark the "template instance" via an annotation property. This is a very interesting aspect of the pattern and ideally it would be great if it could be discussed in greater detail, for example, how could this aspect of the pattern be conveyed to potential third-party consumer applications of the ontology?
}}

Reviews:BenedictoRodriguezCastro about Template Instance

2012-08-28T17:07:06Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{Content OP Proposal Review Template
|SubmittedBy=BenedictoRodriguezCastro
|ContentOPUnderReview=Template Instance
|RevisionID=11158
|CreationDate=2012/8/28
|Score=0 - needs major revision
|ReviewSummary=This pattern describes how to reify a reoccurring set of instances in a given ontology model. The pattern allows to minimize the number of times that the reoccurring instances need to be instantiated in the ontology model by creating the notion of an "instance template".
|ReviewConfidence=High. The pattern is given only in abstract terms. It is applicable to any domain. Domain-specific knowledge is not needed.
|ReviewProblems=The description of the pattern in abstract terms appears as a very insteresting optimization to avoid the unnecessary repetition of a set of instances that occur multiple times in the ontology model. In that sense, it is a very useful and practical modelling idiom.
On the other hand, there are some aspects that hinders the applicability and understandability of the pattern, such as: (a) lack of a concrete example of the pattern supported by a corresponding graphical representation (b) the reusable building block in OWL provided contains only the annotation property mentioned in the pattern (c) the examples OWL files also refer to the implementation of the pattern in abstract terms (d) the known uses provided simply point to the landing website of two medical classifications but it is not clear how the pattern is actually used by these classification resources.
Therefore, because of the reasons above, I would recommend to provide a major revision of the pattern to address them.
|ReviewRelevance=Upfront, the modelling scenario addressed comes accross as very likely to occur and therefore the pattern can be very relevant to the community.
|ReviewUnderstandability=There is opportunity to improve the understandability by providing a concrete example of the pattern in addition to the abstract one.
|ReviewClearProblem=The problem can be also better characterized by giving a clear real world example of the modelling problem addresed.
|ReviewFigures=The illustrations provided are very helpful. But again, lack of illustrations of a concrete example are missing.
}}

Reviews:BenedictoRodriguezCastro about Template Instance

2012-08-28T17:00:37Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

Reviews:BenedictoRodriguezCastro about Template Instance

2012-08-28T16:54:15Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

Reviews:BenedictoRodriguezCastro about Template Instance

2012-08-28T16:53:03Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro: New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2012/8/28 |SubmittedBy=BenedictoRodriguezCastro |ContentOPUnderReview=Template Instance |RevisionID=11158 |Score=0 - needs major revisio...

{{Content OP Proposal Review Template
|CreationDate=2012/8/28
|SubmittedBy=BenedictoRodriguezCastro
|ContentOPUnderReview=Template Instance
|RevisionID=11158
|Score=0 - needs major revision
|ReviewSummary=This pattern describes how to reify a reoccurring set of instances in a given ontology model. The pattern allows to minimize the number of times that the reoccurring instances need to be instantiated in the ontology model by creating the notion of an "instance template".
|ReviewConfidence=High. The pattern is given only in abstract terms. It is applicable to any domain. Domain-specific knowledge is not needed.
}}

User:BenedictoRodriguezCastro

2012-08-15T09:13:03Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{User Template
|FirstName=Benedicto
|LastName=Rodriguez Castro
|Gender=Male
|Picture=Bene-rodriguez-profile-pic.jpeg
|EmailAddress=beroca@gmail.com
|HomePage=http://purl.org/beroca
|Organization=Universitaet der Bundeswehr Munich
|OrganizationType=Educational Training and Research Institution
|OrganizationWebSite=http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/
|Country=Germany (DE)
|Role=Researcher
}}
{{Account Request Template
|Motivation=To collaborate in the understanding and development of ODPs
|PossibleMainContribution=To have some help to solve modeling problems, To help other users to solve modeling problems
|DomainsOfInterest=Community:University
|ExpertOfDomains=Knowledge Organization Systems
|HowDidIKnowAbout=conference/public events
}}

File:Bene-rodriguez-profile-pic.jpeg

2012-08-15T09:11:54Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

User:BenedictoRodriguezCastro

2012-08-15T09:03:19Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{User Template
|FirstName=Benedicto
|LastName=Rodriguez Castro
|Gender=Male
|Picture=ODPUserIcon.gif
|EmailAddress=beroca@gmail.com
|HomePage=http://purl.org/beroca
|Organization=Universitaet der Bundeswehr Munich
|OrganizationType=Educational Training and Research Institution
|OrganizationWebSite=http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/
|Country=Germany (DE)
|Role=Researcher
}}
{{Account Request Template
|Motivation=To collaborate in the understanding and development of ODPs
|PossibleMainContribution=To have some help to solve modeling problems, To help other users to solve modeling problems
|DomainsOfInterest=Community:University
|ExpertOfDomains=Knowledge Organization Systems
|HowDidIKnowAbout=conference/public events
}}

User:BenedictoRodriguezCastro

2012-08-15T09:01:05Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{User Template
|FirstName=Benedicto
|LastName=Rodriguez Castro
|Gender=Male
|Picture=ODPUserIcon.gif
|EmailAddress=beroca@gmail.com
|HomePage=http://purl.org/beroca
|Organization=Universitaet der Bundeswehr Munich
|OrganizationType=Educational Training and Research Institution
|OrganizationWebSite=http://www.unibw.de
|Country=Germany (DE)
|Role=Researcher
}}
{{Account Request Template
|Motivation=To collaborate in the understanding and development of ODPs
|PossibleMainContribution=To have some help to solve modeling problems, To help other users to solve modeling problems
|DomainsOfInterest=Community:University
|ExpertOfDomains=Knowledge Organization Systems
|HowDidIKnowAbout=conference/public events
}}

WOP:2010

2011-02-19T12:20:51Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro: /* Accepted patterns */

== Welcome to the 2nd Workshop on Ontology Patterns - WOP2010 ==

----
WOP DINNER
* '''Aniseed Vietnamese Restaurant 太仓路181弄1, Taicang Road, Luwan, Shanghai, China''' at 8pm
----
* '''[[User:ChrisWelty| Chris Welty]] will give the [[WOP:2010/KeynoteTalk| WOP 2010 keynote presentation]].'''
----
* '''See the problem proposals selected for the WOP pattern writing session [[WOP:2010#Problems_for_Pattern_Writing_Session|here]]!
----
----
'''Take me directly to...'''
* [[WOP:2010#Program | ...workshop program (accepted papers and patterns).]]
* [[WOP:2010#Submission_and_Important_Dates | ...important dates.]]
----
----

This is the second edition in a series of yearly workshops addressing the emerging topic of ontology patterns as best practices, related to the [[Ontology_Design_Patterns_._org_(ODP) |''ontologydesignpatterns.org'']] initiative. Patterns need to be shared by a community in order to provide a common language and stimulate pattern usage and development. Hence, the aim of this workshop is twofold; both providing an arena for proposing and discussing good practices, patterns, pattern-based ontologies, systems etc., and broadening the pattern community that will develop its own “language” for discussing and describing relevant problems and their solutions.

It will be a full-day workshop consisting of three parts; paper presentations, posters/demos, and “pattern writing” sessions. The poster session will feature both paper posters and pattern posters, i.e. presentations of patterns submitted through [[Ontology_Design_Patterns_._org_(ODP) |''ontologydesignpatterns.org'']]. For the pattern writing session ontology design problems will be submitted and voted for (by the PC and the ODP portal quality committee). The problems considered most interesting will be treated during the workshop, to provide the draft of a solution.

__TOC__

== Venue and dates ==
The second edition of WOP will be held in conjunction with [http://iswc2010.semanticweb.org/ ISWC 2010] at '''Shanghai, China''' on '''November 8th'''. (the first workshop was held in conjunction with [http://iswc2009.semanticweb.org/ ISWC 2009], for more information see [[WOP:2009 | the WOP2009 website]]).

== Workshop Focus and Relevance ==
As interest in the Semantic Web increases and technologies for realizing the semantic web become more mature, the need for high-quality and reusable semantic web ontologies increases. To address the quality and reusability issues, different types of Ontology Design Patterns (ODPs) have emerged. Patterns can supply ontology designers with several kinds of benefits, including a direct link to requirements, reuse, guidance, and better communication. ODPs are well on their way to providing those benefits. ODPs have been [http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/ proposed by the W3C] and are currently being collected in various repositories, such as the [http://www.gong.manchester.ac.uk/odp/html/index.html catalogue maintained by the University of Manchester] and the ODP portal at [[Ontology_Design_Patterns_._org_(ODP) |ontologydesignpatterns.org]]. However, pattern catalogues are still small and do not cover all types of patterns and all domains. Semantic Web applications could also benefit from additional types of patterns, such as knowledge patterns and specialized software patterns for semantic applications. In addition, to achieve communication benefits, patterns need to be shared by a community in order to provide a common language for discussing and understanding modeling problems. The workshop can leverage the activities conducted in the ontologydesignpatterns.org initiative, and aims to use the portal as its main means of communication, e.g. for pattern submission, reviewing and discussions outside the workshop schedule.

Reuse has been an important research subject in ontology engineering for many years, and this is also true for the semantic web community. Patterns are an approach to knowledge reuse that has proved feasible and very profitable in many other areas such as software engineering and data modeling. During the past few years, patterns for semantic web ontologies and ontology-based applications have been introduced, and at this point in time we believe that the community would highly benefit from a series of workshops focusing on this particular topic. An earlier workshop, [http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty/OPSW-05/ Ontology Patterns for the Semantic Web] , was arranged at ISWC2005, however at that time the community was considerably smaller. The focus then was on discussing reusable OWL and RDF ontologies addressing general open problems. The WOP series broadens this scope to include all patterns related to ontology design and knowledge engineering for the Semantic Web. This is in line with the successful [http://ekaw2008.inrialpes.fr/ EKAW2008] conference (with the sub-title Knowledge Patterns). Topics of this conference included ontology engineering patterns but also patterns for re-engineering of knowledge resources, process knowledge, social and cognitive aspects of semantics. The first workshop was held in conjunction with [http://iswc2009.semanticweb.org/ ISWC 2009], for more information see [[WOP:2009 | the WOP2009 website]].

A workshop should be a practical and interaction-rich event, hence the workshop will have three parts: regular papers, posters/demos, and “pattern writing”, with a focus on the latter. The inspiration for this model comes from the [http://hillside.net/patterns/patternworkshop.htm pattern writing workshops for software patterns]. The aim is to promote development and review of actual patterns, rather than papers describing patterns. Related events are also [http://vocamp.org/wiki/VoCampIbiza2009 VoCamps] for writing vocabularies for the Semantic Web.

== Call for Papers - Topics ==
Submission instruction for research papers, posters, demos, and position papers can be found at the [[WOP:2010/Submission | submission page]].

The main aim of the workshop is to discuss and collect solutions to recurrent problems i.e. ontology patterns, that matter to researchers and practitioners of the Semantic Web field, and that impact on ontology design and engineering. Original research papers and poster papers are invited to consider the following (non exhaustive) list of topics:

* Ontology Design Patterns (ODPs) and pattern-based ontology design
* ODPs for specific knowledge domains e.g. multimedia, fishery and agriculture, user profiling, business modeling, etc.
* Anti-patterns and their relations to ODPs
* ODPs for interacting with data
* ODPs for expressing relevance of data in context
* Collaborative ontology design and collaboration patterns in ontology design and engineering
* Correspondence patterns for ontology matching and integration
* Lexico-syntactic patterns
* Reasoning patterns (workflows made of reasoning steps for addressing specific goals)
* Processes and services - process patterns
* Re-engineering patterns for conceptual models, folksonomies, lexicons, thesauri
* Problem solving methods and patterns

* Ontology Design Patterns and Linked Data
* Ontology Patterns and Microformats
* Patterns for using different vocabularies together e.g. FOAF, SIOC, DC, etc.
* Web semantics from a pattern perspective

* Good practices of ontology design
* Good practices for Linked Data and related applications
* Good practices for hybridization of semantic web and NLP techniques
* Good Practices and Patterns of semantic social networks, semantic wikis, semantic blogs
* Good Practices of Semantic Web in general

* Software patterns for Semantic Web applications
* Interaction patterns and the Semantic Web
* Pattern-based methodologies for Semantic Web ontologies and software engineering
* Application Profiles
* Domain specific applications based on patterns and success-stories
* Pattern-based ontologies

* Tools support for pattern-based knowledge engineering
* Pattern-based ontology evaluation and selection
* Automatic ontology construction (ontology learning) based on patterns
* Contextual reasoning and patterns as context
* Knowledge patterns and knowledge re-engineering based on patterns
* Pattern-based information extraction

* Quality evaluation of patterns
* Benefits of ontology patterns and knowledge patterns

The poster category is particularly suitable for short research papers (e.g. work-in-progress or preliminary results) and for descriptions of software tools supporting the design, management, discovery, matching, or any other way of processing ontology patterns. A poster can also provide a high-level description of a research project that has ontology patterns as one of its topics (position paper). A poster paper may or may not include a description of an application demonstration. Demo submissions will be treated in the same way as poster papers, with the addition that if accepted the authors are obliged to (in addition to their poster) provide a demo of their application at the workshop poster session.

== Call for Patterns and Problem Proposals ==
Submission instructions for both patterns and problem proposals can be found at the [[WOP:2010/Submission | submission page]].

Pattern submissions for the pattern part of the poster session will be collected through the [[Ontology_Design_Patterns_._org_(ODP) | ODP portal]], and templates for submission are provided for the following types of patterns (see general [[OPTypes | typology]] for explanation of the types):
* Content patterns
* Structural patterns: logical and architecture patterns
* Correspondence patterns: re-engineering and alignment patterns
For other types of patterns, or if the author wishes to elaborate on theoretical rather than practical aspects, a pattern description may be submitted as either a research paper or poster paper. A paper submission can be accompanied by a pattern submission, however the submissions will be reviewed separately.

Additionally, we invite submissions of interesting problems for the "pattern writing" sessions. Problems should be in the scope of “ontology engineering problems” (in a broad sense), i.e., problems where currently no ODP exist. The most interesting problem proposals will be selected through a voting process, and at the workshop the participants will be divided into groups based on interests and background, where each group will be assigned one proposed problem. The goal is to develop and propose an initial pattern candidate corresponding to that issue, which is presented to the rest of the participants at the end of the session and can then be posted in the [[Ontology_Design_Patterns_._org_(ODP) | ODP portal]] for revision and scrutiny. The person who proposed the problem will be present at the workshop to provide background information about the problem for the candidate ODP to be created.

==Proceedings==
Proceedings will appear at CEUR-ws.org. For a list of accepted papers and patterns, see the [[WOP:2010#Program | program]].

== Related references ==

The [http://ftp.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-516/ WOP2009 proceedings], as well as:

* [http://wiki.loa-cnr.it/images/3/31/ERPaperODP.pdf Valentina Presutti and Aldo Gangemi. Content Ontology Design Patterns as Practical Building Blocks for Web Ontologies (ER 2008)]
* [http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/ Natasha Noy and Alan Rector. Defining N-ary Relations on the Semantic Web (2006)]
* [http://books.google.com/books?id=VKXKvlalq5UC&pg=PA262&lpg=PA262&dq=ontology+design+patterns+for+semantic+web&source=bl&ots=HY1qG6-_Bx&sig=-e2MGBjRMWnLhhjsqJHfJK-X9pc&hl=en&ei=7LZASu3gMYW8jAe2_cWQCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7 Aldo Gangemi. Ontology Design Patterns for Semantic Web Content (ISWC 2005).]
* [http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-classes-as-values/ Natasha Noy, Michael Uschold, Chris Welty. Representing Classes As Property Values on the Semantic Web (2005)]
* [http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-specified-values/ Alan Rector. Representing Specified Values in OWL: "value partitions" and "value sets" (2005)]
* [http://www.scharffe.fr/pub/phd-thesis/manuscript.pdf Francois Scharffe. Correspondence Patterns Representation. PhD Thesis (2009)]
* [http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/pclark/papers/handbook03.pdf Peter Clark, John Thompson, and Bruce Porter. Knowledge Patterns. In Handbook of Ontologies (2003)]
* [http://www.springerlink.com/content/d2lp476v0p281q73/?p=f9d5500ce8b24589b2baf5eef213b0f5&pi=3 Mikel Egaña, Alan Rector, Robert Stevens, Erick Antezana. Applying Ontology Design Patterns in bio-ontologies. (EKAW 2008).]

== Submission and Important Dates ==
For details on how to submit to WOP2010 see the [[WOP:2010/Submission | submission page]]. Accepted research papers, position papers, and poster/demo will be published online in the CEUR-Workshop Proceedings.

'''Important dates'''
* Submission deadline (research papers, poster/demo papers and patterns) - '''Extended to: September 1st (11:59 Hawaii time)'''
* Notification of acceptance (research papers, poster/demo papers and patterns) - '''September 20th'''
* Camera ready deadline (research papers, poster/demo papers) - '''October 1st'''
* Upload of final pattern version (patterns) - '''October 1st'''
* Proposal of "pattern writing problems" (problem proposals) - '''October 1st'''
* Online proceedings published (research papers, poster/demo papers) - '''October 15th'''
* Workshop date - '''November 8'''

== WOP Organisation ==

==== WOP2010 Chairs ====

* Paper and poster chairs: Valentina Presutti, STLab ISTC-CNR (IT) [http://stlab.istc.cnr.it/stlab/User:ValentinaPresutti ''contact''], and Vinay K. Chaudhri, SRI International (US) [http://www.ai.sri.com/people/chaudhri ''contact'']
* Pattern chairs - Eva Blomqvist, ISTC-CNR (IT) [http://stlab.istc.cnr.it/stlab/User:EvaBlomqvist ''contact''] and Oscar Corcho, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (ES) [http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/oscar-corcho/ ''contact'']
* Proceedings chair: Kurt Sandkuhl, Jönköping University (SE).

==== Steering Committee ====

The workshop series is arranged by a fixed steering committee, appointing the chairs and adjusting the focus of the workshop on a yearly basis.

The WOP Steering committee consists of:
* Eva Blomqvist, ISTC-CNR (IT)
* Aldo Gangemi, ISTC-CNR (IT)
* Natasha Noy, Stanford University (US)
* Valentina Presutti, ISTC-CNR (IT)
* Alan Rector, University of Manchester (UK)
* Francois Scharffe, INRIA (FR)
* Steffen Staab, University of Koblenz (DE)
* Chris Welty, IBM Watson Research Center (US)

==== Paper/Poster/Demo Program Committee ====
* Marie-Aude Aufaure, Ecole Centrale Paris (FR).
* Alessandro Adamou, ISTC-CNR (IT).
* Vinay Chaudhri,SRI International (US).
* Mathieu D'Aquin, Open University (UK).
* Enrico Daga, ISTC-CNR (IT).
* Violeta Damjanovic, Salzburg Research (AT).
* Rim Djedidi, University Paris Nord 13 (FR).
* Leigh Dodds, Talis (UK).
* Henrik Eriksson, Linköping University (SE).
* Aldo Gangemi, ISTC-CNR (IT).
* Jose-Manuel Gomez, Intelligent Software Components (iSOCO) S.A. (ES).
* Gerd Groener, University of Koblenz-Landau (DE).
* Holger Lewen, Institut AIFB, KIT (DE).
* Natasha Noy, Stanford University (US).
* Wim Peters, University of Sheffield (UK).
* Alan Rector, University of Manchester (UK).
* Alan Ruttenberg, Creative Commons (US).
* Marta Sabou, MODUL University (AT).
* Kurt Sandkuhl, Jönköping University (SE).
* Francois Scharffe, INRIA (FR).
* Steffen Staab, University of Koblenz-Landau (DE).
* Mari Carmen Suárez-Figueroa. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (ES).
* Vojtech Svatek, University of Economics, Prague (CZ).
* Tania Tudorache, Stanford University (US).
* Boris Villazón-Terrazas, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (ES).
* Chris Welty, IBM Watson Research Center (US).

==== Pattern Program Committee (To be completed...) ====
* Alessandro Adamou, ISTC-CNR (IT).
* Rim Djedidi, University Paris Nord 13 (FR).
* Gerd Groener, University of Koblenz-Landau (DE).
* Enrico Motta, KMI Open University, Milton Keynes (UK).
* Olaf Noppens, University of Ulm (DE).
* Andrea Nuzzolese, ISTC-CNR (IT).
* Catherine ROUSSEY, LIRIS-CNRS Cemagref (FR).
* Alan Ruttenberg, Creative Commons (US).
* Mari Carmen Suárez-Figueroa. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (ES).
* Vojtech Svatek, University of Economics, Prague (CZ).
* Pierre-Yves Vandenbussche, INSERM (FR).
* Boris Villazón-Terrazas, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (ES).

== Program ==

'''Note for speakers: research papers presentations have 30 minutes slots. The presentation can take up to 20 minutes, no more (16-18 minutes would be the best duration). It is important to leave enough time (10 minutes is a minimum) for discussion.'''

'''[8:45 - 9:00]''' Opening and welcome 
['''9:00 - 10:00]''' [[WOP:2010/KeynoteTalk| keynote talk]] by [[User:ChrisWelty| Chris Welty]] 
'''[10:00-10:30]''' Coffee Break 
'''[10:30-12:00]''' Poster session (see [[WOP:2010#Accepted_poster_papers| accepted posters]] and [[WOP:2010#Accepted_patterns| accepted patterns]] ) 
'''[12:00-12:30]''' [[WOP:2010#Accepted_research_papers| Research papers]] 
* Karl Hammar and Kurt Sandkuhl. [[Media:Pap1.pdf |''The State of Ontology Pattern Research - A Systematic Review of ISWC, ESWC and ASWC 2005–2009'']] 
'''[12:30-14:00]''' Lunch Break 
'''[14:00-15:00]''' [[WOP:2010#Accepted_research_papers| Research papers]] 
* Vojtech Svatek, Ondrej Svab-Zamazal and Miroslav Vacura. [[Media:Pap5.pdf |''Adapting Ontologies to Content Patterns using Transformation Patterns'']] 
* María Poveda-Villalón, Mari Carmen Suárez-Figueroa and Asunción Gómez-Pérez. [[Media:Pap4.pdf |''Reusing Ontology Design Patterns in a Context Ontology Network'']] 
'''[15:00-16:00]''' [[WOP:2010#Problems_for_Pattern_Writing_Session| Pattern writing session]] (introduction and startup of session) 
'''[16:00-16:30]''' Coffee break 
'''[16:30-18:00]''' [[WOP:2010#Problems_for_Pattern_Writing_Session| Pattern writing session]] (pattern writing and presentation of results) 

==== Accepted research papers ====
* Karl Hammar and Kurt Sandkuhl. ''The State of Ontology Pattern Research - A Systematic Review of ISWC, ESWC and ASWC 2005–2009''
* Vojtech Svatek, Ondrej Svab-Zamazal and Miroslav Vacura. ''Adapting Ontologies to Content Patterns using Transformation Patterns''
* María Poveda-Villalón, Mari Carmen Suárez-Figueroa and Asunción Gómez-Pérez. ''Reusing Ontology Design Patterns in a Context Ontology Network''

==== Accepted poster papers ====
* Eva Blomqvist, Jeff Waters, Marion Ceruti and Don McGarry. [[Media:Pap3.pdf |''A Decision-making Format for the Semantic Web'']]

==== Accepted patterns ====
* [[Submissions:Context_Slices | Context Slices]] (Chris Welty)
* [[Submissions:Faceted_Classification_Scheme | Faceted Classification Scheme]] (Benedicto Rodriguez Castro) - [[media:Fig_wop2010_award.jpg|''Best Pattern Award'']]
* [[Submissions:Summarization_of_an_inverse_n-ary_relation | Summarization of an inverse n-ary relation]] (Maria Poveda, Mari Carmen Suarez-Figueroa)
* [[Submissions:Literal_Reification | Literal Reification]] (Aldo Gangemi, Silvio Peroni, Fabio Vitali)
* [[Submissions:SimpleOrAggregated | SimpleOrAggregated]] (Maria Poveda, Mari Carmen Suarez-Figueroa)

=== Problems for Pattern Writing Session ===
* [[Community:Ordered_Lists | Ordered Lists]]
* [[Community:Situation_classification | Situation Classification]]
* [[Community:Multiple_Alternative_Classification_Criteria| Multiple Alternative Classification Criteria ]]
----

[[Category:Event]]
[[Category:WOP]]

{{Event
|Name=WOP 2010
|HasStartDate=2010/11/08
|HasEndDate=2010/11/08
}}
{{Submission deadline
|deadline=2010/10/04
|expired=The submission deadline has passed!
|intime=Deadline has not passed, you can still submit to this workshop!
}}

File:Fig wop2010 award.jpg

2011-02-19T12:10:53Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro: Best Pattern Award at WOP2010

Best Pattern Award at WOP2010

Community:View Inheritance

2010-09-06T18:26:01Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{TitleDescription Template
|Title=View Inheritance
|Description=Representation of the multiple alternative criteria available to classify the abstractions of a certain ontology domain concept.
}}
{{Graphical representation}}
{{Modeling Issue Template
|Author=BenedictoRodriguezCastro, HughGlaser
|Domain=General
|CompetencyQuestion=For example, in the case of the representation of the "wine" domain concept:
* Allow me to select a bottle of wine by color, region, flavour and(or) ocassion.

In the case of the representation of the "pizza" domain concept:
* Allow me to select a pizza based on the type of base, the toppings and(or) the name.
|Scenario=This modeling problem is discussed in object-oriented design as the motivation to introduce "View Inheritance" (see page 824 of [Meyer 2000]). "View Inheritance" corresponds to one of the 12 valid uses of inheritance identified by the author.

There are cases when the application intended to use the ontology requires the multiple abstractions available to classify the domain concept to be represented in the ontology.

As an example from the object-oriented design, consider the alternative criteria that are avaible to classify the abstraction of a simple domain concepts such as "employee" (page 852 in [Meyer 2000]):
* Employee: by contract type (permanent vs. temporary), by job type (engineering, administrative, managerial).

Similar examples exist in the ontology design field such us "wine" [Noy and McGuiness 2001] and "pizza" [Horridge et al. 2009]:
* Wine: color, region, flavour, ocassion, etc.
* Pizza: base (deep pan, thin), topping (cheese, meat, vegetable, etc.), name (margherita, american, etc.)

Now, let us think of a web site that attemtps to provide wine recommendations to its visitors or a web site to order pizza.
|RelatedPattern=Partition, ClassAsPropertyValue, Normalization, Faceted Classification Scheme,
}}
{{Additional information header}}
After some time looking at this type of modeling problem, another domain that deals with this type of conceptual modelling scenario is "facet analisys" and "faceted classification" in Library Science.

It seems that there is a strong correlation across different disciplines regarding how they address the modeling problem presented here:
* "View Inheritance" in Object-Oriented Design (see page 824 of [Meyer, 2000]).
* The "polyhierarchies" or "semantic axes" refered to in the "Normalization Ontology Design Pattern" in Ontology Design [Rector, 2003][Normalization ODP].
* "Facet Analysis" and "Facetted Classification" in Library Science. See example on how to model the concept of "dish detergent" in [Denton, 2003].
{{My references}}
{{Modeling Issue toolbar}}

Community:Multiple Alternative Classification Criteria

2010-09-06T18:24:11Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{TitleDescription Template
|Title=Multiple Alternative Classification Criteria.

Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).
|Description=This modelling issue describes a specific, very recurrent modeling scenario in ontology development, subject to the vulnerability of ad-hoc modeling practices that could potentially lead to unexpected or undesirable results in ontology artifacts.
The scenario consists of domain-specific concepts that can be represented according to multiple alternative classification criteria.
}}
{{Graphical representation
|ImageName=Denton - 2003 - FCS Dishwashing Detergent.jpg
}}
{{Modeling Issue Template
|Author=BenedictoRodriguezCastro, HughGlaser, LesCarr
|Domain=General, Vocabulary,
|CompetencyQuestion=Allow me to retrieve all "elements" (classes/individuals) of a "domain concept" viewed by a combination of "values" (or "terms") from various "classification criteria" (or "facets").
|Scenario=Retrieve all "dishwashing detergents" whose "Brand" is "Palmolive" and whose "Scent" is "lemon".
|ProposedSolution=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1666716/Attachments/detergent_fcs_normalisation_prot3x_owl.owl
|RelatedPattern=Partition, Normalization, ClassAsPropertyValue, Faceted Classification Scheme,
}}
{{Additional information header}}
To the best of our knowledge, guidelines for the conceptualization and representation of domain-specific concepts prone to be described based on multiple (potentially alternative) classification criteria, has not been explicitly considered in the context of ontology modeling for the Semantic Web.
General examples of domain-specific concepts that exhibit the characteristics described abound, going from a "bibliographic reference", (which could be classified according to several criteria such as "subject", "author", "publication venue", etc.); to a "toy" (which could be classified based on "suitable age", "brand", "subject type", etc.).
The list of examples can go on.
We have seen in our own experience that lack of specific design guidelines leaves ample room for conceptual errors when trying to develop a simple domain-specific ontology model for such concepts.
For example, common mistakes when trying to represent these concepts and their classification criteria are to use subsumption relations between classes when in fact a part-of relation would be in order, or to use subsumption to model relationships that are outside OWL DL expressivity altogether.

Other examples of domain-specific concepts that can fit into the modeling scenario described are particularly interesting because they are used in well-known ontology development literature using OWL.
They include: "Wine" [[Community:References/OWL web ontology language guide|(Welty et al., 2004)]], "Person" (in the context of family history relations) [[Community:References/OWL 2 web ontology language primer|(Krotzsch et al., 2009)]], or "Pizza" [[Community:References/A Practical Guide To Building OWL Ontologies Using Protege 4 and CO-ODE Tools Edition 1 2 2|(Horridge et al., 2009)]].
However, in none of them, they refer explicitly to the various classification criteria of the domain concept that are considered implicitly, nor attempt to represent these criteria explicitly in the respective ontology models developed.

This modeling issue refers to the conceptualization of a specific domain concept using a Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).

A FCS is defined as: "a set of mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive categories, each made by isolating one perspective on the items (a facet), that combine to completely describe all the objects in question, and which users can use, by searching and browsing, to find what they need" [[Community:References/How to Make a Faceted Classification and Put It On the Web 2|(Denton, 2003)]].

The section '''Diagram''' below presents an example of a FCS in the domain of "Dishwashing Detergent" from [[Community:References/How to Make a Faceted Classification and Put It On the Web 2|(Denton, 2003)]].

A more detailed explanation of this modeling issue and the rationale of one proposed solution is presented in the paper: [[Community:References/How to Reuse a Faceted Classification and Put it on the Semantic Web|(Rodriguez-Castro et al., 2010)]].

The OWL file in section '''Proposed Solutions''' provides an OWL DL implementation of
the example FCS in section '''Diagram''' applying the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP as outlined in the paper mentioned.
{{My references}}
{{Modeling Issue toolbar}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP:2010
}}

Community:Multiple Alternative Classification Criteria

2010-09-06T18:16:58Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro: Community:Faceted Classification Scheme moved to Community:Multiple Alternative Classification Criteria: The name "Faceted Classification Scheme" corresponds to the solution of the modeling issue. The new name is the modeling issue itself.

{{TitleDescription Template
|Title=Multiple Alternative Classification Criteria.

Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).
|Description=This modelling issue describes a specific, very recurrent modeling scenario in ontology development, subject to the vulnerability of ad-hoc modeling practices that could potentially lead to unexpected or undesirable results in ontology artifacts.
The scenario consists of domain-specific concepts that can be represented according to multiple alternative classification criteria.
}}
{{Graphical representation
|ImageName=Denton - 2003 - FCS Dishwashing Detergent.jpg
}}
{{Modeling Issue Template
|Author=BenedictoRodriguezCastro, HughGlaser, LesCarr
|Domain=General, Vocabulary,
|CompetencyQuestion=Allow me to retrieve all "elements" (classes/individuals) of a "domain concept" viewed by a combination of "values" (or "terms") from various "classification criteria" (or "facets").
|Scenario=Retrieve all "dishwashing detergents" whose "Brand" is "Palmolive" and whose "Scent" is "lemon".
|ProposedSolution=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1666716/Attachments/detergent_fcs_normalisation_prot3x_owl.owl
|RelatedPattern=Partition, Normalization, ClassAsPropertyValue
}}
{{Additional information header}}
To the best of our knowledge, guidelines for the conceptualization and representation of domain-specific concepts prone to be described based on multiple (potentially alternative) classification criteria, has not been explicitly considered in the context of ontology modeling for the Semantic Web.
General examples of domain-specific concepts that exhibit the characteristics described abound, going from a "bibliographic reference", (which could be classified according to several criteria such as "subject", "author", "publication venue", etc.); to a "toy" (which could be classified based on "suitable age", "brand", "subject type", etc.).
The list of examples can go on.
We have seen in our own experience that lack of specific design guidelines leaves ample room for conceptual errors when trying to develop a simple domain-specific ontology model for such concepts.
For example, common mistakes when trying to represent these concepts and their classification criteria are to use subsumption relations between classes when in fact a part-of relation would be in order, or to use subsumption to model relationships that are outside OWL DL expressivity altogether.

Other examples of domain-specific concepts that can fit into the modeling scenario described are particularly interesting because they are used in well-known ontology development literature using OWL.
They include: "Wine" [[Community:References/OWL web ontology language guide|(Welty et al., 2004)]], "Person" (in the context of family history relations) [[Community:References/OWL 2 web ontology language primer|(Krotzsch et al., 2009)]], or "Pizza" [[Community:References/A Practical Guide To Building OWL Ontologies Using Protege 4 and CO-ODE Tools Edition 1 2 2|(Horridge et al., 2009)]].
However, in none of them, they refer explicitly to the various classification criteria of the domain concept that are considered implicitly, nor attempt to represent these criteria explicitly in the respective ontology models developed.

This modeling issue refers to the conceptualization of a specific domain concept using a Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).

A FCS is defined as: "a set of mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive categories, each made by isolating one perspective on the items (a facet), that combine to completely describe all the objects in question, and which users can use, by searching and browsing, to find what they need" [[Community:References/How to Make a Faceted Classification and Put It On the Web 2|(Denton, 2003)]].

The section '''Diagram''' below presents an example of a FCS in the domain of "Dishwashing Detergent" from [[Community:References/How to Make a Faceted Classification and Put It On the Web 2|(Denton, 2003)]].

A more detailed explanation of this modeling issue and the rationale of one proposed solution is presented in the paper: [[Community:References/How to Reuse a Faceted Classification and Put it on the Semantic Web|(Rodriguez-Castro et al., 2010)]].

The OWL file in section '''Proposed Solutions''' provides an OWL DL implementation of
the example FCS in section '''Diagram''' applying the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP as outlined in the paper mentioned.
{{My references}}
{{Modeling Issue toolbar}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP:2010
}}

Community:Faceted Classification Scheme

2010-09-06T18:16:58Z

#REDIRECT [[Community:Multiple Alternative Classification Criteria]]

Community:Multiple Alternative Classification Criteria

2010-09-06T18:08:47Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{TitleDescription Template
|Title=Multiple Alternative Classification Criteria.

Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).
|Description=This modelling issue describes a specific, very recurrent modeling scenario in ontology development, subject to the vulnerability of ad-hoc modeling practices that could potentially lead to unexpected or undesirable results in ontology artifacts.
The scenario consists of domain-specific concepts that can be represented according to multiple alternative classification criteria.
}}
{{Graphical representation
|ImageName=Denton - 2003 - FCS Dishwashing Detergent.jpg
}}
{{Modeling Issue Template
|Author=BenedictoRodriguezCastro, HughGlaser, LesCarr
|Domain=General, Vocabulary,
|CompetencyQuestion=Allow me to retrieve all "elements" (classes/individuals) of a "domain concept" viewed by a combination of "values" (or "terms") from various "classification criteria" (or "facets").
|Scenario=Retrieve all "dishwashing detergents" whose "Brand" is "Palmolive" and whose "Scent" is "lemon".
|ProposedSolution=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1666716/Attachments/detergent_fcs_normalisation_prot3x_owl.owl
|RelatedPattern=Partition, Normalization, ClassAsPropertyValue
}}
{{Additional information header}}
To the best of our knowledge, guidelines for the conceptualization and representation of domain-specific concepts prone to be described based on multiple (potentially alternative) classification criteria, has not been explicitly considered in the context of ontology modeling for the Semantic Web.
General examples of domain-specific concepts that exhibit the characteristics described abound, going from a "bibliographic reference", (which could be classified according to several criteria such as "subject", "author", "publication venue", etc.); to a "toy" (which could be classified based on "suitable age", "brand", "subject type", etc.).
The list of examples can go on.
We have seen in our own experience that lack of specific design guidelines leaves ample room for conceptual errors when trying to develop a simple domain-specific ontology model for such concepts.
For example, common mistakes when trying to represent these concepts and their classification criteria are to use subsumption relations between classes when in fact a part-of relation would be in order, or to use subsumption to model relationships that are outside OWL DL expressivity altogether.

Other examples of domain-specific concepts that can fit into the modeling scenario described are particularly interesting because they are used in well-known ontology development literature using OWL.
They include: "Wine" [[Community:References/OWL web ontology language guide|(Welty et al., 2004)]], "Person" (in the context of family history relations) [[Community:References/OWL 2 web ontology language primer|(Krotzsch et al., 2009)]], or "Pizza" [[Community:References/A Practical Guide To Building OWL Ontologies Using Protege 4 and CO-ODE Tools Edition 1 2 2|(Horridge et al., 2009)]].
However, in none of them, they refer explicitly to the various classification criteria of the domain concept that are considered implicitly, nor attempt to represent these criteria explicitly in the respective ontology models developed.

This modeling issue refers to the conceptualization of a specific domain concept using a Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).

A FCS is defined as: "a set of mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive categories, each made by isolating one perspective on the items (a facet), that combine to completely describe all the objects in question, and which users can use, by searching and browsing, to find what they need" [[Community:References/How to Make a Faceted Classification and Put It On the Web 2|(Denton, 2003)]].

The section '''Diagram''' below presents an example of a FCS in the domain of "Dishwashing Detergent" from [[Community:References/How to Make a Faceted Classification and Put It On the Web 2|(Denton, 2003)]].

A more detailed explanation of this modeling issue and the rationale of one proposed solution is presented in the paper: [[Community:References/How to Reuse a Faceted Classification and Put it on the Semantic Web|(Rodriguez-Castro et al., 2010)]].

The OWL file in section '''Proposed Solutions''' provides an OWL DL implementation of
the example FCS in section '''Diagram''' applying the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP as outlined in the paper mentioned.
{{My references}}
{{Modeling Issue toolbar}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP:2010
}}

Community:Multiple Alternative Classification Criteria

2010-09-06T18:08:00Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{TitleDescription Template
|Title=Multiple Alternative Classification Criteria.

Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).
|Description=This modelling issue describes a specific, very recurrent modeling scenario in ontology development, subject to the vulnerability of ad-hoc modeling practices that could potentially lead to unexpected or undesirable results in ontology artifacts.
The scenario consists of domain-specific concepts that can be represented according to multiple alternative classification criteria.
}}
{{Graphical representation
|ImageName=Denton - 2003 - FCS Dishwashing Detergent.jpg
}}
{{Modeling Issue Template
|Author=BenedictoRodriguezCastro, HughGlaser, LesCarr
|Domain=General, Vocabulary,
|CompetencyQuestion=Allow me to retrieve all "elements" (classes/individuals) of a "domain concept" viewed by a combination of "values" (or "terms") from various "classification criteria" (or "facets").
|Scenario=Retrieve all "dishwashing detergents" whose "Brand" is "Palmolive" and whose "Scent" is "lemon".
|ProposedSolution=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1666716/Attachments/detergent_fcs_normalisation_prot3x_owl.owl
|RelatedPattern=Partition, Normalization, ClassAsPropertyValue
}}
{{Additional information header}}
To the best of our knowledge, guidelines for the conceptualization and representation of domain-specific concepts prone to be described based on multiple (potentially alternative) classification criteria, has not been explicitly considered in the context of ontology modeling for the Semantic Web.
General examples of domain-specific concepts that exhibit the characteristics described abound, going from a "bibliographic reference", (which could be classified according to several criteria such as "subject", "author", "publication venue", etc.); to a "toy" (which could be classified based on "suitable age", "brand", "subject type", etc.).
The list of examples can go on.
We have seen in our own experience that lack of specific design guidelines leaves ample room for conceptual errors when trying to develop a simple domain-specific ontology model for such concepts.
For example, common mistakes when trying to represent these concepts and their classification criteria are to use subsumption relations between classes when in fact a part-of relation would be in order, or to use subsumption to model relationships that are outside OWL DL expressivity altogether.

Other examples of domain-specific concepts that can fit into the modeling scenario described are particularly interesting because they are used in well-known ontology development literature using OWL.
They include: "Wine" [[Community:References/OWL web ontology language guide|(Welty et al., 2004)]], "Person" (in the context of family history relations) [[Community:References/OWL 2 web ontology language primer|(Krotzsch et al., 2009)]], or "Pizza" [[Community:References/A Practical Guide To Building OWL Ontologies Using Protege 4 and CO-ODE Tools Edition 1 2 2|(Horridge et al., 2009)]].
However, in none of them, they refer explicitly to the various classification criteria of the domain concept that are considered implicitly, nor attempt to represent these criteria explicitly in the respective ontology models developed.

This modeling issue refers to the conceptualization of a specific domain concept using a Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).

A FCS is defined as: "a set of mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive categories, each made by isolating one perspective on the items (a facet), that combine to completely describe all the objects in question, and which users can use, by searching and browsing, to find what they need" [[Community:References/How to Make a Faceted Classification and Put It On the Web 2|(Denton, 2003)]].

The section '''Diagram''' below presents an example of a FCS in the domain of "Dishwashing Detergent" from [[Community:References/How to Make a Faceted Classification and Put It On the Web 2|(Denton, 2003)]].

A more detailed explanation of this modeling issue and the rationale of one proposed solution is presented in the paper: [[Community:References/How to Reuse a Faceted Classification and Put it on the Semantic Web|(Rodriguez-Castro et al., 2010)]].

The OWL file in section '''Proposed Solutions''' provides an OWL DL implementation of
the example FCS in section '''Diagram''' applying the Normalization ODP as outlined in the paper mentioned.
{{My references}}
{{Modeling Issue toolbar}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP:2010
}}

Community:Multiple Alternative Classification Criteria

2010-09-06T17:31:05Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{TitleDescription Template
|Title=Multiple Alternative Classification Criteria.

Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).
|Description=This modelling issue describes a specific, very recurrent modeling scenario in ontology development, subject to the vulnerability of ad-hoc modeling practices that could potentially lead to unexpected or undesirable results in ontology artifacts.
The scenario consists of domain-specific concepts that can be represented according to multiple alternative classification criteria.

}}
{{Graphical representation
|ImageName=Denton - 2003 - FCS Dishwashing Detergent.jpg
}}
{{Modeling Issue Template
|Author=BenedictoRodriguezCastro, HughGlaser, LesCarr
|Domain=General, Vocabulary,
|CompetencyQuestion=Allow me to retrieve all "elements" (classes/individuals) of a "domain concept" viewed by a combination of "values" (or "terms") from various "classification criteria" (or "facets").
|Scenario=Retrieve all "dishwashing detergents" whose "Brand" is "Palmolive" and whose "Scent" is "lemon".
|ProposedSolution=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1666716/Attachments/detergent_fcs_normalisation_prot3x_owl.owl
|RelatedPattern=Partition, Normalization, ClassAsPropertyValue
}}
{{Additional information header}}
To the best of our knowledge, guidelines for the conceptualization and representation of domain-specific concepts prone to be described based on multiple (potentially alternative) classification criteria, has not been explicitly considered in the context of ontology modeling for the Semantic Web.
General examples of domain-specific concepts that exhibit the characteristics described abound, going from a "bibliographic reference", (which could be classified according to several criteria such as "subject", "author", "publication venue", etc.); to a "toy" (which could be classified based on "suitable age", "brand", "subject type", etc.).
The list of examples can go on.
We have seen in our own experience that lack of specific design guidelines leaves ample room for conceptual errors when trying to develop a simple domain-specific ontology model for such concepts.
For example, common mistakes when trying to represent these concepts and their classification criteria are to use subsumption relations between classes when in fact a part-of relation would be in order, or to use subsumption to model relationships that are outside OWL DL expressivity altogether.

Other examples of domain-specific concepts that can fit into the modeling scenario described are particularly interesting because they are used in well-known ontology development literature using OWL.
They include: "Wine" [[Community:References/OWL web ontology language guide|(Welty et al., 2004)]], "Person" (in the context of family history relations) [[Community:References/OWL 2 web ontology language primer|(Krotzsch et al., 2009)]], or "Pizza" [[Community:References/A Practical Guide To Building OWL Ontologies Using Protege 4 and CO-ODE Tools Edition 1 2 2|(Horridge et al., 2009)]].
However, in none of them, they refer explicitly to the various classification criteria of the domain concept that are considered implicitly, nor attempt to represent these criteria explicitly in the respective ontology models developed.

This modeling issue refers to the conceptualization of a specific domain concept using a Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).

A FCS is defined as: "a set of mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive categories, each made by isolating one perspective on the items (a facet), that combine to completely describe all the objects in question, and which users can use, by searching and browsing, to find what they need" [[Community:References/How to Make a Faceted Classification and Put It On the Web 2|(Denton, 2003)]].

The section '''Diagram''' below presents an example of a FCS in the domain of "Dishwashing Detergent" from [[Community:References/How to Make a Faceted Classification and Put It On the Web 2|(Denton, 2003)]].

A more detailed explanation of this modeling issue and the rationale of one proposed solution is presented in the paper: [[Community:References/How to Reuse a Faceted Classification and Put it on the Semantic Web|(Rodriguez-Castro et al., 2010)]].

The OWL file in section '''Proposed Solutions''' provides an OWL DL implementation of
the example FCS in section '''Diagram''' applying the Normalization ODP as outlined in the paper mentioned.
{{My references}}
{{Modeling Issue toolbar}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP:2010
}}

Community:Multiple Alternative Classification Criteria

2010-09-06T17:26:00Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{TitleDescription Template
|Title=Multiple Alternative Classification Criteria.

Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).
|Description=This modelling issue describes a specific, very recurrent modeling scenario in ontology development, subject to the vulnerability of ad-hoc modeling practices that could potentially lead to unexpected or undesirable results in ontology artifacts.
The scenario consists of domain-specific concepts that can be represented according to multiple alternative classification criteria.
To the best of our knowledge, guidelines for the conceptualization and representation of domain-specific concepts prone to be described based on multiple (potentially alternative) classification criteria, has not been explicitly considered in the context of ontology modeling for the Semantic Web.
}}
{{Graphical representation
|ImageName=Denton - 2003 - FCS Dishwashing Detergent.jpg
}}
{{Modeling Issue Template
|Author=BenedictoRodriguezCastro, HughGlaser, LesCarr
|Domain=General, Vocabulary,
|CompetencyQuestion=Allow me to retrieve all "elements" (classes/individuals) of a "domain concept" viewed by a combination of "values" (or "terms") from various "classification criteria" (or "facets").
|Scenario=Retrieve all "dishwashing detergents" whose "Brand" is "Palmolive" and whose "Scent" is "lemon".
|ProposedSolution=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1666716/Attachments/detergent_fcs_normalisation_prot3x_owl.owl
|RelatedPattern=Partition, Normalization, ClassAsPropertyValue
}}
{{Additional information header}}
General examples of domain-specific concepts that exhibit the characteristics described abound, going from a "bibliographic reference", (which could be classified according to several criteria such as "subject", "author", "publication venue", etc.); to a "toy" (which could be classified based on "suitable age", "brand", "subject type", etc.).
The list of examples can go on.
We have seen in our own experience that lack of specific design guidelines leaves ample room for conceptual errors when trying to develop a simple domain-specific ontology model for such concepts.
For example, common mistakes when trying to represent these concepts and their classification criteria are to use subsumption relations between classes when in fact a part-of relation would be in order, or to use subsumption to model relationships that are outside OWL DL expressivity altogether.

Other examples of domain-specific concepts that can fit into the modeling scenario described are particularly interesting because they are used in well-known ontology development literature using OWL.
They include: "Wine" [[Community:References/OWL web ontology language guide|(Welty et al., 2004)]], "Person" (in the context of family history relations) [[Community:References/OWL 2 web ontology language primer|(Krotzsch et al., 2009)]], or "Pizza" [[Community:References/A Practical Guide To Building OWL Ontologies Using Protege 4 and CO-ODE Tools Edition 1 2 2|(Horridge et al., 2009)]].
However, in none of them, they refer explicitly to the various classification criteria of the domain concept that are considered implicitly, nor attempt to represent these criteria explicitly in the respective ontology models developed.

This modeling issue refers to the conceptualization of a specific domain concept using a Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).

A FCS is defined as: "a set of mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive categories, each made by isolating one perspective on the items (a facet), that combine to completely describe all the objects in question, and which users can use, by searching and browsing, to find what they need" [[Community:References/How to Make a Faceted Classification and Put It On the Web 2|(Denton, 2003)]].

The section '''Diagram''' below presents an example of a FCS in the domain of "Dishwashing Detergent" from [[Community:References/How to Make a Faceted Classification and Put It On the Web 2|(Denton, 2003)]].

A more detailed explanation of this modeling issue and the rationale of one proposed solution is presented in the paper: [[Community:References/How to Reuse a Faceted Classification and Put it on the Semantic Web|(Rodriguez-Castro et al., 2010)]].

The OWL file in section '''Proposed Solutions''' provides an OWL DL implementation of
the example FCS in section '''Diagram''' applying the Normalization ODP as outlined in the paper mentioned.
{{My references}}
{{Modeling Issue toolbar}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP:2010
}}

Community:Multiple Alternative Classification Criteria

2010-09-06T17:24:16Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{TitleDescription Template
|Title=Multiple Alternative Classification Criteria.

Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).
|Description=This modelling issue describes a specific, very recurrent modeling scenario in ontology development, subject to the vulnerability of ad-hoc modeling practices that could potentially lead to unexpected or undesirable results in ontology artifacts.
The scenario consists of domain-specific concepts that can be represented according to multiple alternative classification criteria.
To the best of our knowledge, guidelines for the conceptualization and representation of domain-specific concepts prone to be described based on multiple (potentially alternative) classification criteria, has not been explicitly considered in the context of ontology modeling for the Semantic Web.

}}
{{Graphical representation
|ImageName=Denton - 2003 - FCS Dishwashing Detergent.jpg
}}
{{Modeling Issue Template
|Author=BenedictoRodriguezCastro, HughGlaser, LesCarr
|Domain=General, Vocabulary,
|CompetencyQuestion=Allow me to retrieve all "elements" (classes/individuals) of a "domain concept" viewed by a combination of "values" (or "terms") from various "classification criteria" (or "facets").
|Scenario=Retrieve all "dishwashing detergents" whose "Brand" is "Palmolive" and whose "Scent" is "lemon".
|ProposedSolution=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1666716/Attachments/detergent_fcs_normalisation_prot3x_owl.owl
|RelatedPattern=Partition, Normalization, ClassAsPropertyValue
}}
{{Additional information header}}
General examples of domain-specific concepts that exhibit the characteristics described abound, going from a "bibliographic reference", (which could be classified according to several criteria such as "subject", "author", "publication venue", etc.); to a "toy" (which could be classified based on "suitable age", "brand", "subject type", etc.).
The list of examples can go on.
We have seen in our own experience that lack of specific design guidelines leaves ample room for conceptual errors when trying to develop a simple domain-specific ontology model for such concepts.
For example, common mistakes when trying to represent these concepts and their classification criteria are to use subsumption relations between classes when in fact a part-of relation would be in order, or to use subsumption to model relationships that are outside OWL DL expressivity altogether.

Other examples of domain-specific concepts that can fit into the modeling scenario described are particularly interesting because they are used in well-known ontology development literature using OWL.
They include: "Wine" [[Community:References/OWL web ontology language guide|(Welty et al., 2004)]], "Person" (in the context of family history relations) [[Community:References/OWL 2 web ontology language primer|(Krotzsch et al., 2009)]], or "Pizza" [[Community:References/A Practical Guide To Building OWL Ontologies Using Protege 4 and CO-ODE Tools Edition 1 2 2|(Horridge et al., 2009)]].
However, in none of them, they refer explicitly to the various classification criteria of the domain concept that are considered implicitly, nor attempt to represent these criteria explicitly in the respective ontology models developed.

This modeling issue refers to the conceptualization of a specific domain concept using a Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).

A FCS is defined as: "a set of mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive categories, each made by isolating one perspective on the items (a facet), that combine to completely describe all the objects in question, and which users can use, by searching and browsing, to find what they need" [[Community:References/How to Make a Faceted Classification and Put It On the Web 2|(Denton, 2003)]].

The section '''Diagram''' below presents an example of a FCS in the domain of "Dishwashing Detergent" from [[Community:References/How to Make a Faceted Classification and Put It On the Web 2|(Denton, 2003)]].

A more detailed explanation of this modeling issue and the rationale of one proposed solution is presented in the paper: [[Community:References/How to Reuse a Faceted Classification and Put it on the Semantic Web|(Rodriguez-Castro et al., 2010)]].

The OWL file in section '''Proposed Solutions''' provides an OWL DL implementation of
the example FCS in section '''Diagram''' applying the Normalization ODP as outlined in the paper mentioned.
{{My references}}
{{Modeling Issue toolbar}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP:2010
}}

Community:Multiple Alternative Classification Criteria

2010-09-06T16:51:04Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{TitleDescription Template
|Title=Multiple Alternative Classification Criteria.

Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).
|Description=This modelling issue describes a specific, very recurrent modeling scenario in ontology development, subject to the vulnerability of ad-hoc modeling practices that could potentially lead to unexpected or undesirable results in ontology artifacts.
The scenario consists of domain-specific concepts that can be represented according to multiple alternative classification criteria.
To the best of our knowledge, guidelines for the conceptualization and representation of domain-specific concepts prone to be described based on multiple (potentially alternative) classification criteria, has not been explicitly considered in the context of ontology modeling for the Semantic Web.

General examples of domain-specific concepts that exhibit the characteristics described abound, going from a "bibliographic reference", (which could be classified according to several criteria such as "subject", "author", "publication venue", etc.); to a "toy" (which could be classified based on "suitable age", "brand", "subject type", etc.).
The list of examples can go on.
We have seen in our own experience that lack of specific design guidelines leaves ample room for conceptual errors when trying to develop a simple domain-specific ontology model for such concepts.
For example, common mistakes when trying to represent these concepts and their classification criteria are to use subsumption relations between classes when in fact a part-of relation would be in order, or to use subsumption to model relationships that are outside OWL DL expressivity altogether.

Other examples of domain-specific concepts that can fit into the modeling scenario described are particularly interesting because they are used in well-known ontology development literature using OWL.
They include: "Wine" [[Community:References/OWL web ontology language guide|(Welty et al., 2004)]], "Person" (in the context of family history relations) [[Community:References/OWL 2 web ontology language primer|(Krotzsch et al., 2009)]], or "Pizza" [[Community:References/A Practical Guide To Building OWL Ontologies Using Protege 4 and CO-ODE Tools Edition 1 2 2|(Horridge et al., 2009)]].
However, in none of them, they refer explicitly to the various classification criteria of the domain concept that are considered implicitly, nor attempt to represent these criteria explicitly in the respective ontology models developed.

This modeling issue refers to the conceptualization of a specific domain concept using a Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).

A FCS is defined as: "a set of mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive categories, each made by isolating one perspective on the items (a facet), that combine to completely describe all the objects in question, and which users can use, by searching and browsing, to find what they need" [[Community:References/How to Make a Faceted Classification and Put It On the Web 2|(Denton, 2003)]].

The section '''Diagram''' below presents an example of a FCS in the domain of "Dishwashing Detergent" from [[Community:References/How to Make a Faceted Classification and Put It On the Web 2|(Denton, 2003)]].
}}
{{Graphical representation
|ImageName=Denton - 2003 - FCS Dishwashing Detergent.jpg
}}
{{Modeling Issue Template
|Author=BenedictoRodriguezCastro, HughGlaser, LesCarr
|Domain=General, Vocabulary,
|CompetencyQuestion=Allow me to retrieve all "elements" (classes/individuals) of a "domain concept" viewed by a combination of "values" (or "terms") from various "classification criteria" (or "facets").
|Scenario=Retrieve all "dishwashing detergents" whose "Brand" is "Palmolive" and whose "Scent" is "lemon".
|ProposedSolution=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1666716/Attachments/detergent_fcs_normalisation_prot3x_owl.owl
|RelatedPattern=Partition, Normalization, ClassAsPropertyValue
}}
{{Additional information header}}
A more detailed explanation of this modeling issue and the rationale of one proposed solution is presented in the paper: [[Community:References/How to Reuse a Faceted Classification and Put it on the Semantic Web|(Rodriguez-Castro et al., 2010)]].

The OWL file in section '''Proposed Solutions''' provides an OWL DL implementation of
the example FCS in section '''Diagram''' applying the Normalization ODP as outlined in the paper mentioned.
{{My references}}
{{Modeling Issue toolbar}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP:2010
}}

Community:Multiple Alternative Classification Criteria

2010-09-06T16:38:52Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{TitleDescription Template
|Title=Multiple Alternative Classification Criteria.

Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).
|Description=This modelling issue describes a specific, very recurrent modeling scenario in ontology development, subject to the vulnerability of ad-hoc modeling practices that could potentially lead to unexpected or undesirable results in ontology artifacts.
The scenario consists of domain-specific concepts that can be represented according to multiple alternative classification criteria.
To the best of our knowledge, guidelines for the conceptualization and representation of domain-specific concepts prone to be described based on multiple (potentially alternative) classification criteria, has not been explicitly considered in the context of ontology modeling for the Semantic Web.

General examples of domain-specific concepts that exhibit the characteristics described abound, going from a "bibliographic reference", (which could be classified according to several criteria such as "subject", "author", "publication venue", etc.); to a "toy" (which could be classified based on "suitable age", "brand", "subject type", etc.).
The list of examples can go on.
We have seen in our own experience that lack of specific design guidelines leaves ample room for conceptual errors when trying to develop a simple domain-specific ontology model for such concepts.
For example, common mistakes when trying to represent these concepts and their classification criteria are to use subsumption relations between classes when in fact a part-of relation would be in order, or to use subsumption to model relationships that are outside OWL DL expressivity altogether.

Other examples of domain-specific concepts that can fit into the modeling scenario described are particularly interesting because they are used in well-known ontology development literature using OWL.
They include: "Wine" [1], "Person" (in the context of family history relations) [2], or "Pizza" [3].
However, in none of them, they refer explicitly to the various classification criteria of the domain concept that are considered implicitly, nor attempt to represent these criteria explicitly in the respective ontology models developed.

This modeling issue refers to the conceptualization of a specific domain concept using a Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).

A FCS is defined as: "a set of mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive categories, each made by isolating one perspective on the items (a facet), that combine to completely describe all the objects in question, and which users can use, by searching and browsing, to find what they need" [[Community:References/How to Make a Faceted Classification and Put It On the Web 2|(Denton, 2003)]].

The section '''Diagram''' below presents an example of a FCS in the domain of "Dishwashing Detergent" from [[Community:References/How to Make a Faceted Classification and Put It On the Web 2|(Denton, 2003)]].
}}
{{Graphical representation
|ImageName=Denton - 2003 - FCS Dishwashing Detergent.jpg
}}
{{Modeling Issue Template
|Author=BenedictoRodriguezCastro, HughGlaser, LesCarr
|Domain=General, Vocabulary,
|CompetencyQuestion=Allow me to retrieve all "elements" (classes/individuals) of a "domain concept" viewed by a combination of "values" (or "terms") from various "classification criteria" (or "facets").
|Scenario=Retrieve all "dishwashing detergents" whose "Brand" is "Palmolive" and whose "Scent" is "lemon".
|ProposedSolution=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1666716/Attachments/detergent_fcs_normalisation_prot3x_owl.owl
|RelatedPattern=Partition, Normalization, ClassAsPropertyValue
}}
{{Additional information header}}
A more detailed explanation of this modeling issue and the rationale of one proposed solution is presented in the paper: [http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21488/ How to ''Reuse'' a Faceted Classification and Put It on the ''Semantic'' Web].

The OWL file in section '''Proposed Solutions''' provides an OWL DL implementation of
the example FCS in section '''Diagram''' applying the Normalization ODP as outlined in the paper mentioned.
{{My references}}
{{Modeling Issue toolbar}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP:2010
}}

Community:References/A Practical Guide To Building OWL Ontologies Using Protege 4 and CO-ODE Tools Edition 1 2 2

2010-09-06T16:36:25Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro: New page: {{Reference |Subject=Community:Faceted Classification Scheme |Label=A Practical Guide To Building OWL Ontologies Using Protege 4 and CO-ODE Tools Edition 1.2 |Description=Matthew Horridge,...

{{Reference
|Subject=Community:Faceted Classification Scheme
|Label=A Practical Guide To Building OWL Ontologies Using Protege 4 and CO-ODE Tools Edition 1.2
|Description=Matthew Horridge, Nick Drummond, Simon Jupp, Georgina Moulton, Robert Stevens. A Practical Guide To Building OWL Ontologies Using Protege 4 and CO-ODE Tools Edition 1.2. Technical report, The University Of Manchester, March 2009.
|Type=Documentation
|TypeOther=Documentation
|URL=http://owl.cs.manchester.ac.uk/tutorials/protegeowltutorial/resources/ProtegeOWLTutorialP4_v1_2.pdf
}}

Community:References/OWL 2 web ontology language primer

2010-09-06T16:33:44Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{Reference
|Subject=Community:Faceted Classification Scheme
|Label=OWL 2 web ontology language primer
|Description=Krotzsch, M., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Rudolph, S., Hitzler, P., Parsia, B.: OWL 2 web ontology language primer. Technical report, W3C (October 2009).
|Type=Documentation
|URL=http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-primer-20091027/
}}

Community:References/OWL 2 web ontology language primer

2010-09-06T16:32:25Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro: New page: {{Reference |Subject=Community:Faceted Classification Scheme |Label=OWL 2 web ontology language primer |Description=Krotzsch, M., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Rudolph, S., Hitzler, P., Parsia, ...

Community:References/OWL web ontology language guide

2010-09-06T16:31:21Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro: New page: {{Reference |Subject=Community:Faceted Classification Scheme |Label=OWL web ontology language guide |Description=Welty, C., McGuinness, D.L., Smith, M.K.: OWL web ontology language guide. ...

{{Reference
|Subject=Community:Faceted Classification Scheme
|Label=OWL web ontology language guide
|Description=Welty, C., McGuinness, D.L., Smith, M.K.: OWL web ontology language guide. W3C recommendation, W3C (February 2004).
|Type=Documentation
|URL= http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/
}}

Community:Multiple Alternative Classification Criteria

2010-09-06T16:28:09Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{TitleDescription Template
|Title=Multiple Alternative Classification Criteria.

Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).
|Description=This modelling issue describes a specific, very recurrent modeling scenario in ontology development, subject to the vulnerability of ad-hoc modeling practices that could potentially lead to unexpected or undesirable results in ontology artifacts.
The scenario consists of domain-specific concepts that can be represented according to multiple alternative classification criteria.
To the best of our knowledge, guidelines for the conceptualization and representation of domain-specific concepts prone to be described based on multiple (potentially alternative) classification criteria, has not been explicitly considered in the context of ontology modeling for the Semantic Web.

General examples of domain-specific concepts that exhibit the characteristics described abound, going from a "bibliographic reference", (which could be classified according to several criteria such as "subject", "author", "publication venue", etc.); to a "toy" (which could be classified based on "suitable age", "brand", "subject type", etc.).
The list of examples can go on.
We have seen in our own experience that lack of specific design guidelines leaves ample room for conceptual errors when trying to develop a simple domain-specific ontology model for such concepts.
For example, common mistakes when trying to represent these concepts and their classification criteria are to use subsumption relations between classes when in fact a part-of relation would be in order, or to use subsumption to model relationships that are outside OWL DL expressivity altogether.

This modeling issue refers to the conceptualization of a specific domain concept using a Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).

A FCS is defined as: "a set of mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive categories, each made by isolating one perspective on the items (a facet), that combine to completely describe all the objects in question, and which users can use, by searching and browsing, to find what they need" [[Community:References/How to Make a Faceted Classification and Put It On the Web 2|(Denton, 2003)]].

The section '''Diagram''' below presents an example of a FCS in the domain of "Dishwashing Detergent" from [[Community:References/How to Make a Faceted Classification and Put It On the Web 2|(Denton, 2003)]].
}}
{{Graphical representation
|ImageName=Denton - 2003 - FCS Dishwashing Detergent.jpg
}}
{{Modeling Issue Template
|Author=BenedictoRodriguezCastro, HughGlaser, LesCarr
|Domain=General, Vocabulary,
|CompetencyQuestion=Allow me to retrieve all "elements" (classes/individuals) of a "domain concept" viewed by a combination of "values" (or "terms") from various "classification criteria" (or "facets").
|Scenario=Retrieve all "dishwashing detergents" whose "Brand" is "Palmolive" and whose "Scent" is "lemon".
|ProposedSolution=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1666716/Attachments/detergent_fcs_normalisation_prot3x_owl.owl
|RelatedPattern=Partition, Normalization, ClassAsPropertyValue
}}
{{Additional information header}}
A more detailed explanation of this modeling issue and the rationale of one proposed solution is presented in the paper: [http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21488/ How to ''Reuse'' a Faceted Classification and Put It on the ''Semantic'' Web].

The OWL file in section '''Proposed Solutions''' provides an OWL DL implementation of
the example FCS in section '''Diagram''' applying the Normalization ODP as outlined in the paper mentioned.
{{My references}}
{{Modeling Issue toolbar}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP:2010
}}

Community:Multiple Alternative Classification Criteria

2010-09-06T15:35:08Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{TitleDescription Template
|Title=Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS)
|Description=This modeling issue refers to the conceptualization of a specific domain concept using a Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).

A FCS is defined as: "a set of mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive categories, each made by isolating one perspective on the items (a facet), that combine to completely describe all the objects in question, and which users can use, by searching and browsing, to find what they need" [[Community:References/How to Make a Faceted Classification and Put It On the Web 2|(Denton, 2003)]].

The section '''Diagram''' below presents an example of a FCS in the domain of "Dishwashing Detergent" from [[Community:References/How to Make a Faceted Classification and Put It On the Web 2|(Denton, 2003)]].
}}
{{Graphical representation
|ImageName=Denton - 2003 - FCS Dishwashing Detergent.jpg
}}
{{Modeling Issue Template
|Author=BenedictoRodriguezCastro, HughGlaser, LesCarr
|Domain=General, Vocabulary,
|CompetencyQuestion=Allow me to retrieve all "elements" (classes/individuals) of a "domain concept" viewed by a combination of "values" (or "terms") from various "classification criteria" (or "facets").
|Scenario=Retrieve all "dishwashing detergents" whose "Brand" is "Palmolive" and whose "Scent" is "lemon".
|ProposedSolution=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1666716/Attachments/detergent_fcs_normalisation_prot3x_owl.owl
|RelatedPattern=Partition, Normalization, ClassAsPropertyValue
}}
{{Additional information header}}
A more detailed explanation of this modeling issue and the rationale of one proposed solution is presented in the paper: [http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21488/ How to ''Reuse'' a Faceted Classification and Put It on the ''Semantic'' Web].

The OWL file in section '''Proposed Solutions''' provides an OWL DL implementation of
the example FCS in section '''Diagram''' applying the Normalization ODP as outlined in the paper mentioned.
{{My references}}
{{Modeling Issue toolbar}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP:2010
}}

Community:Multiple Alternative Classification Criteria

2010-09-06T15:34:17Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{TitleDescription Template
|Title=Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS)
|Description=This modeling issue refers to the conceptualization of a specific domain concept using a Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).

A FCS is defined as: "a set of mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive categories, each made by isolating one perspective on the items (a facet), that combine to completely describe all the objects in question, and which users can use, by searching and browsing, to find what they need" [[Community:References/How to Make a Faceted Classification and Put It On the Web 2|(Denton, 2003)]].

The section '''Diagram''' below presents an example of a FCS in the domain of "Dishwashing Detergent" from [[Community:References/How to Make a Faceted Classification and Put It On the Web 2|(Denton, 2003)]].
}}
{{Graphical representation
|ImageName=Denton - 2003 - FCS Dishwashing Detergent.jpg
}}
{{Modeling Issue Template
|Author=BenedictoRodriguezCastro, HughGlaser, LesCarr
|Domain=General, Vocabulary,
|CompetencyQuestion=Allow me to retrieve all "elements" (classes/individuals) of a "domain concept" viewed by a combination of "values" (or "terms") from various "classification criteria" (or "facets").
|Scenario=Retrieve all "dishwashing detergents" whose "Brand" is "Palmolive" and whose "Scent" is "lemon".
|ProposedSolution=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1666716/Attachments/detergent_fcs_normalisation_prot3x_owl.owl
|RelatedPattern=Partition, Normalization
}}
{{Additional information header}}
A more detailed explanation of this modeling issue and the rationale of one proposed solution is presented in the paper: [http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21488/ How to ''Reuse'' a Faceted Classification and Put It on the ''Semantic'' Web].

The OWL file in section '''Proposed Solutions''' provides an OWL DL implementation of
the example FCS in section '''Diagram''' applying the Normalization ODP as outlined in the paper mentioned.
{{My references}}
{{Modeling Issue toolbar}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP:2010
}}

Submissions:Normalization

2010-09-06T15:29:36Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Graphical representation header}}
{{Graphical representation
|ImageName=Normalisation abstract.png
}}
{{Logical OP General Template
|Name=Normalization
|SubmittedBy=BenedictoRodriguezCastro
|AlsoKnownAs=Modularization, Untangling
|Author=AlanRector, MikelEganaAranguren
}}
{{Logical OP Description Template
|Motivation=There are ontologies where a given class can have plenty of superclasses, building a polyhierarchy. If all those subsumption relationships are directly stated by the ontology maintainer, two main problems rise: (i) the ontology becomes very difficult to maintain: whenever a subsumption must be deleted (because a class has changed) or created (because a new class has been created) it has to be done by hand; in a polyhierarchy the process becomes very inefficient and error-prone. (ii) the semantics are implicitly stated, not explicitly: any other ontologist or reasoner only knows that a class is a subclass of its superclasses, without knowing why.
|Aim=To untangle a polyhierarchy, coding the subsumption relationships using restrictions rather than class-subclass relationships. The application example for this ODP is adapted from the Cell Type Ontology. In the example, the subsumption relationships that already are in the Cell Type Ontology are inferred by the reasoner instead of hard-coded. The term Neutrophil is used as an example class to show how a class can relate to different modules.
|Elements=The original classes of the ontology are divided in different axes. The conditions for each subsumption relationship are encoded as restrictions (e.g. [PerformsFunction some Defense]) that will relate the different modules.
|Implementation=Identify the modules: group the classes. Create the modules, maintaining only one parent for any given primitive class and making primitive siblings disjoint. Redefine the classes (or define the newly added classes) according to the conditions for belonging to each module. Protege includes a wizard, the restrictions matrix, that helps in the process.
}}
{{Logical OP Example Template
|ProblemExample=[[Image:Normalisation_instance.png|center]]
|SolutionExample=http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Image:Normalisation_instance.png
|Consequences=The ontology gets untangled and becomes a collection of neat modules. The rest of the semantics are given by restrictions pointing to the modules, and the reasoner maintains the structure, avoding error-prone human maintenance of the polyhierarchy.
}}
{{Logical OP Reference Template
|Origin=See [[Community:References/Modularisation of domain ontologies implemented in description logics and related formalisms including owl 3|(Rector, 2003)]]
|KnownUse=See [[Community:References/Modularisation of domain ontologies implemented in description logics and related formalisms including owl 3|(Rector, 2003)]]
|RelatedTo=Submissions:Partition,
Submissions:ClassAsPropertyValue
}}
{{Additional information header}}
[[Category:Review assigned]]
[[Category:Waiting for review]]
[[Category:Review assigned]]
[[Category:Review assigned]]
[[Category:Review assigned]]
[[Category:Review assigned]]
{{Scenarios about me}}
{{Reviews about me}}
{{Modeling issues about me}}
{{My references}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP:2010
}}

Submissions:Normalization

2010-09-06T15:27:17Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Graphical representation header}}
{{Graphical representation
|ImageName=Normalisation abstract.png
}}
{{Logical OP General Template
|Name=Normalization
|SubmittedBy=BenedictoRodriguezCastro
|AlsoKnownAs=Modularization, Untangling
|Author=AlanRector, MikelEganaAranguren
}}
{{Logical OP Description Template
|Motivation=There are ontologies where a given class can have plenty of superclasses, building a polyhierarchy. If all those subsumption relationships are directly stated by the ontology maintainer, two main problems rise: (i) the ontology becomes very difficult to maintain: whenever a subsumption must be deleted (because a class has changed) or created (because a new class has been created) it has to be done by hand; in a polyhierarchy the process becomes very inefficient and error-prone. (ii) the semantics are implicitly stated, not explicitly: any other ontologist or reasoner only knows that a class is a subclass of its superclasses, without knowing why.
|Aim=To untangle a polyhierarchy, coding the subsumption relationships using restrictions rather than class-subclass relationships. The application example for this ODP is adapted from the Cell Type Ontology. In the example, the subsumption relationships that already are in the Cell Type Ontology are inferred by the reasoner instead of hard-coded. The term Neutrophil is used as an example class to show how a class can relate to different modules.
|Solution=[[Image:Normalisation_instance.png|center]]
|Elements=The original classes of the ontology are divided in different axes. The conditions for each subsumption relationship are encoded as restrictions (e.g. [PerformsFunction some Defense]) that will relate the different modules.
|Implementation=Identify the modules: group the classes. Create the modules, maintaining only one parent for any given primitive class and making primitive siblings disjoint. Redefine the classes (or define the newly added classes) according to the conditions for belonging to each module. Protege includes a wizard, the restrictions matrix, that helps in the process.
}}
{{Logical OP Example Template
|SolutionExample=http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Image:Normalisation_instance.png
|Consequences=The ontology gets untangled and becomes a collection of neat modules. The rest of the semantics are given by restrictions pointing to the modules, and the reasoner maintains the structure, avoding error-prone human maintenance of the polyhierarchy.
}}
{{Logical OP Reference Template
|Origin=See [[Community:References/Modularisation of domain ontologies implemented in description logics and related formalisms including owl 3|(Rector, 2003)]]
}}
{{Additional information header}}
[[Category:Review assigned]]
[[Category:Waiting for review]]
[[Category:Review assigned]]
[[Category:Review assigned]]
[[Category:Review assigned]]
[[Category:Review assigned]]
{{Scenarios about me}}
{{Reviews about me}}
{{Modeling issues about me}}
{{My references}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP:2010
}}

Submissions:Normalization

2010-09-06T15:24:52Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Graphical representation header}}
{{Graphical representation
|ImageName=Normalisation abstract.png
}}
{{Logical OP General Template
|Name=Normalization
|SubmittedBy=BenedictoRodriguezCastro
|AlsoKnownAs=Modularization, Untangling
|Author=AlanRector, MikelEganaAranguren
}}
{{Logical OP Description Template
|Motivation=There are ontologies where a given class can have plenty of superclasses, building a polyhierarchy. If all those subsumption relationships are directly stated by the ontology maintainer, two main problems rise: (i) the ontology becomes very difficult to maintain: whenever a subsumption must be deleted (because a class has changed) or created (because a new class has been created) it has to be done by hand; in a polyhierarchy the process becomes very inefficient and error-prone. (ii) the semantics are implicitly stated, not explicitly: any other ontologist or reasoner only knows that a class is a subclass of its superclasses, without knowing why.
|Aim=To untangle a polyhierarchy, coding the subsumption relationships using restrictions rather than class-subclass relationships. The application example for this ODP is adapted from the Cell Type Ontology. In the example, the subsumption relationships that already are in the Cell Type Ontology are inferred by the reasoner instead of hard-coded. The term Neutrophil is used as an example class to show how a class can relate to different modules.
|Solution=[[Image:Normalisation_instance.png|center]]
|Elements=The original classes of the ontology are divided in different axes. The conditions for each subsumption relationship are encoded as restrictions (e.g. [PerformsFunction some Defense]) that will relate the different modules.
|Implementation=Identify the modules: group the classes. Create the modules, maintaining only one parent for any given primitive class and making primitive siblings disjoint. Redefine the classes (or define the newly added classes) according to the conditions for belonging to each module. Protege includes a wizard, the restrictions matrix, that helps in the process.
}}
{{Logical OP Example Template
|SolutionExample=http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Image:Normalisation_instance.png
|Consequences=The ontology gets untangled and becomes a collection of neat modules. The rest of the semantics are given by restrictions pointing to the modules, and the reasoner maintains the structure, avoding error-prone human maintenance of the polyhierarchy.
}}
{{Logical OP Reference Template}}
{{Additional information header}}

[[Category:Review assigned]]
[[Category:Waiting for review]]
[[Category:Review assigned]]
[[Category:Review assigned]]
[[Category:Review assigned]]
[[Category:Review assigned]]
{{Scenarios about me}}
{{Reviews about me}}
{{Modeling issues about me}}
{{My references}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP:2010
}}

Community:References/Role and Application of Ontology Design Patterns in Bio-ontologies 2

2010-09-06T02:52:05Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro: New page: {{Reference |Subject=Submissions:Faceted Classification Scheme |Label=Role and Application of Ontology Design Patterns in Bio-ontologies |Description=Egana-Aranguren, Mikel. Role and Appli...

{{Reference
|Subject=Submissions:Faceted Classification Scheme
|Label=Role and Application of Ontology Design Patterns in Bio-ontologies
|Description=Egana-Aranguren, Mikel. Role and Application of Ontology Design Patterns in Bio-ontologies. PhD thesis, School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, 2009.
|Type=Documentation
|TypeOther=Documentation
|URL=http://mikeleganaaranguren.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/thesis.pdf
}}

Community:References/Role and Application of Ontology Design Patterns in Bio-ontologies

2010-09-06T02:51:01Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro: New page: {{Reference |Subject=Submissions:Normalization |Label=Role and Application of Ontology Design Patterns in Bio-ontologies |Description=Egana-Aranguren, Mikel. Role and Application of Ontolo...

{{Reference
|Subject=Submissions:Normalization
|Label=Role and Application of Ontology Design Patterns in Bio-ontologies
|Description=Egana-Aranguren, Mikel. Role and Application of Ontology Design Patterns in Bio-ontologies. PhD thesis, School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, 2009.
|Type=Documentation
|URL=http://mikeleganaaranguren.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/thesis.pdf
}}

Submissions:Faceted Classification Scheme

2010-09-06T02:42:30Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{Reengineering_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal General Information Template
|Name=[[Community:Faceted Classification Scheme|Faceted Classification Scheme]] (FCS)
|Problem=Ontological representation of a specific domain concept conceptualized using a Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal NOR Template
|Description=A FCS is defined as: "a set of mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive categories, each made by isolating one perspective on the items (a facet), that combine to completely describe all the objects in question, and which users can use, by searching and browsing, to find what they need" [[Community:References/How_to_Make_a_Faceted_Classification_and_Put_It_On_the_Web_3|(Denton, 2003)]].

The following notation is introduced to refer to the elements of a generic FCS in the figure below:
* ''Target Domain Concept'' (''TDC'') denotes the domain of discourse. The domain-specific concept targeted by the FCS.
* ''Facet_i'' denotes one of the facets of the FCS.
* ''F_iTerm_j'' denotes one of the terms of ''Facet_i''.
* ''Item_x'' denotes one the items from the domain of discourse (''TDC'') to be classified.
|Graphical Representation=FacetedClassificationScheme_GenericStructure.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Ontology Template
|Description=Generic structure of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP used to represent a Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).

[[Image:NormalizationGenericStructure1.png|center|frame|The symbol (≡) denotes an OWL defined class.]]

The figure below represents a further generalization of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP and introduces the following notation:
* '':TDC'' denotes a primitive class representing the domain concept being normalized.
* '':Module_i'' denotes a primitive class that represents one of the modules.
* '':M_iClass_j'' denotes a primitive class that represents a subset of the module class '':Module_i''.
* '':hasModule_i'' denotes an object property that links every module '':Module_i'' to the different subclasses of the target domain concept '':M_iClass_jTDC'' and '':SpecificTDC_x''.
* '':M_iClass_jTDC'' denotes a defined class that represents a subset of the target domain concept class '':TDC''. Every class '':M_iClass_jTDC'' is defined based on its relationship to the single corresponding class '':M_iClass_j'' that it is derived from.
* '':SpecificTDC_x'' denotes a primitive class that represents a subset of the target domain concept class '':TDC'' and an entity from the domain to be classified. Every class '':SpecificTDC_x'' is described based on its relationship to various classes '':M_iClass_j'' from potentially different modules. As a consequence of this relationship, the classes '':SpecificTDC_x'' could introduce the polyhierarchy scenarios in the ontology model that the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP aims to manage and untangle.

The implementation of a generic defined class '':M_iClass_jTDC'' is given as follows:
'':M_iClass_jTDC'' rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf '':TDC'' ;
owl:equivalentClass [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty '':hasModule_i'' ;
owl:someValuesFrom '':M_iClass_j''
] .

The implementation of a generic class '':SpecificTDC_x'' is given as follows:
'':SpecificTDC_x'' rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf '':TDC'' ,
[ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty '':hasModule_i'' ;
owl:someValuesFrom '':M_iClass_j''
] ,
[ ... rest of existential restrictions on property '':hasModule_i''
for every class '':M_iClass_j'' that participates
in the description of '':SpecificTDC_x''
] .

This implementation of the classes '':M_iClass_jTDC'' and '':SpecificTDC_x'' respectively, enable a reasoner to infer and maintain the subsumption relations between a given class '':SpecificTDC_x'' and the various classes '':M_iClass_jTDC'' that it is related to.
|Graphical Representation=NormalizationGenericStructure2.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Process Template
|Description=Mapping between the elements in the generic structure of a Faceted Classification Scheme and the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP.

The table below summarizes the alignment of the elements in the generic structure of both conceptual models. This alignment enables the conversion from a FCS to an OWL DL ontology by applying the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP:
* The first column (leftmost), contains the elements of a generic FCS as introduced in section '''Non-Ontological Resource''' above.
* The second column contains the elements of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP generic structure
as introduced in section '''Ontology''' above.
* The third column represents the selected OWL notation for the elements of a generic FCS in the context of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP generic structure.
* The forth column (rightmost), indicates the OWL implementation chosen for every element. The selection complies with the requirements of the normalization mechanism.

[[Image:MappingFCSNormalizationODP.png|center]]

Based on the principle of representating each facet of a FCS as a module of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP, the underlying ideas behind the mappings in the figure(table) above can be outlined as follows:
* The target domain concept ''TDC'' represents the domain of discourse of both a FCS and the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP. The primitive class '':TDC'' fulfills that role in the normalized ontology.
* A facet ''Facet_i'' from a generic FCS corresponds to a module '':Module_i'' in the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP, therefore it becomes a primitive class '':Facet_i'' in the normalized ontology model.
* A facet ''Facet_i'' from a FCS also becomes an object property '':hasFacet_i'' in the normalized ontology, given that for every module '':Module_i'' in the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP, there is an object property '':has_Module_i''.
* From the relationship between facet and module, it follows that a facet term ''F_iTerm_j'' from a FCS maps to a module subclass '':M_iClass_j'' from the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP. Both elements represents the same notion in their respective conceptual models. A subvidision, a refinement of the facet or module that they complement respectively. Therefore, a facet term ''F_iTerm_j'' from a FCS becomes a primitive class '':F_iTerm_j'' in the normalized ontology.
* A facet term ''F_iTerm_j'' from a FCS also produces a defined class '':F_iTerm_jTDC'' in the normalized ontology, given that for every primitive class '':M_iClass_j'' in the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP, there is a corresponding defined class '':M_iClass_jTDC''.
* Every item ''Item_x'' to be classified in the FCS aligns to a class '':Specific_x'' that is automatically classified by a reasoner in the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP. Therefore, every element ''Item_x'' is represented as a primitive class '':SpecificTDC_x'' in the normalized ontology.
|Graphical Representation=FacetedClassificationSchemeGenericStructure.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Scenario Example Template
|Description=To create an ontology model to represent an existing Faceted Classification Scheme for a specific domain concept.
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal NOR Example Template
|Description=The figure below recaps the final FCS developed for the "Dishwashing Detergent" domain example in [[Community:References/How_to_Make_a_Faceted_Classification_and_Put_It_On_the_Web_3|(Denton, 2003)]](§ 2.4). The elements of the schema fit into the generic structure of a FCS presented in section '''Non-Ontological Resource''' earlier, where:
* The ''TDC'' element is populated with the domain "Dishwashing Detergent".
* ''Facet_i'' elements are populated with the facets: "Agent", "Form", "Brand Name", "Scent", "Effect On Agent", and "Special Property".
* ''F_iTerm_j'' elements are populated with the terms or foci listed below (grouped by facet):
** Agent: dishwasher, person.
** Form: gel, gelpac, liquid, powder, tablet.
** Brand Name: Cascade, Electrasol, Ivory, No Name, Palmolive, President's Choice, Sunlight.
** Scent: green apple, green tea, lavender, lemon, mandarin, ocean breeze, orange blossom, orchard fresh, passion flower, ruby red grapefruit, ylang ylang.
** Effect on Agent: aroma therapy (subdivisions: invigorating, relaxing).
** Special Property: antibacterial.
* ''Item_x'' elements are populated in this case with two example items to classify:
** "President's Choice Antibacterial Hand Soap and Dishwashing Liquid".
** "Palmolive Aroma Therapy, Lavender and Ylang Ylang".

To illustrate the representation of a specific dishwashing detergent, let us reuse the two classification examples presented in [[Community:References/How_to_Make_a_Faceted_Classification_and_Put_It_On_the_Web_3|(Denton, 2003)]](§ 2.4). Applying the "Dishwashing Detergent" FCS developed in the cited reference, the item "President's Choice Antibacterial Hand Soap and Dishwashing Liquid" is classified as follows:
* Agent: person
* Form: liquid
* Brand Name: President's Choice
* Scent: (none)
* Effect on Agent: (none)
* Special Property: antibacterial

The item "Palmolive Aroma Therapy, Lavender and Ylang Ylang," is classified as:
* Agent: person
* Form: liquid
* Brand Name: Palmolive
* Scent: lavender, ylang ylang
* Effect on Agent: aroma therapy
* Special Property: (none)
|Graphical Representation=Denton_-_2003_-_FCS_Dishwashing_Detergent.jpg
|Web Reference=http://www.miskatonic.org/library/facet-web-howto.html
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Ontology Example Template
|Description=OWL representation of the "Dishwashing Detergent" domain concept Faceted Classification Scheme applying the Normalization ODP.

[[Image:FacetedClassificationSchemeOntoExObjProp.png|center|frame|List of object properties.]]

The symbol (≡) denotes an OWL defined class.
|Graphical Representation=FacetedClassificationStructureOntologyExample.png
|Web Reference=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1666716/Attachments/detergent_fcs_normalisation_prot3x_owl.owl
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Process Example Template
|Description=According to the guidelines derived from the table in section '''Process''' above and the implementation of a class '':SpecificTDC_x'' given in section '''Ontology''' above, the description of the example detergent "President's Choice Antibacterial Hand Soap & Dishwashing Liquid" in the normalized ontology can be stated as follows:
:PresidentsPersonLiquidAntibacterial
rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf :DishDetergent ,
[ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty :hasAgent ;
owl:someValuesFrom :Person
] ,
[ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty :hasForm ;
owl:someValuesFrom :Liquid
] ,
[ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty :hasBrandName ;
owl:someValuesFrom :PresidentsChoice
] ,
[ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty :hasSpecialProperty ;
owl:someValuesFrom :Antibacterial
] .

The description of the example detergent "Palmolive Aroma Therapy, Lavender and Ylang Ylang," would be:
:PalmoliveAromaTherapyLavenderYlangYlang
rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf :DishDetergent ,
[ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty :hasAgent ;
owl:someValuesFrom :Person
] ,
[ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty :hasForm ;
owl:someValuesFrom :Liquid
] ,
[ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty :hasBrandName ;
owl:someValuesFrom :Palmolive
] ,
[ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty :hasScent ;
owl:someValuesFrom :Lavender
] ,
[ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty :hasScent ;
owl:someValuesFrom :YlangYlang
] ,
[ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty :hasEffectOnAgent ;
owl:someValuesFrom :AromaTherapy
] .
|Graphical Representation=MappingFCSNormalizationODP.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Additional Information Template
|SubmittedBy=BenedictoRodriguezCastro,
|Author=BenedictoRodriguezCastro, HughGlaser, LesCarr
|Related to=Submissions:Normalization, Submissions:Partition, Submissions:ClassAsPropertyValue
}}
{{Additional information header}}

{{Scenarios about me}}
{{Reviews about me}}
{{Modeling issues about me}}
{{My references}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP:2010
}}

Submissions:Faceted Classification Scheme

2010-09-06T02:40:46Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{Reengineering_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal General Information Template
|Name=[[Community:Faceted Classification Scheme|Faceted Classification Scheme]] (FCS)
|Problem=Ontological representation of a specific domain concept conceptualized using a Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal NOR Template
|Description=A FCS is defined as: "a set of mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive categories, each made by isolating one perspective on the items (a facet), that combine to completely describe all the objects in question, and which users can use, by searching and browsing, to find what they need" [[Community:References/How_to_Make_a_Faceted_Classification_and_Put_It_On_the_Web_3|(Denton, 2003)]].

The following notation is introduced to refer to the elements of a generic FCS in the figure below:
* ''Target Domain Concept'' (''TDC'') denotes the domain of discourse. The domain-specific concept targeted by the FCS.
* ''Facet_i'' denotes one of the facets of the FCS.
* ''F_iTerm_j'' denotes one of the terms of ''Facet_i''.
* ''Item_x'' denotes one the items from the domain of discourse (''TDC'') to be classified.
|Graphical Representation=FacetedClassificationScheme_GenericStructure.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Ontology Template
|Description=Generic structure of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP used to represent a Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).

[[Image:NormalizationGenericStructure1.png|center|frame|The symbol (≡) denotes an OWL defined class.]]

The figure below represents a further generalization of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP and introduces the following notation:
* '':TDC'' denotes a primitive class representing the domain concept being normalized.
* '':Module_i'' denotes a primitive class that represents one of the modules.
* '':M_iClass_j'' denotes a primitive class that represents a subset of the module class '':Module_i''.
* '':hasModule_i'' denotes an object property that links every module '':Module_i'' to the different subclasses of the target domain concept '':M_iClass_jTDC'' and '':SpecificTDC_x''.
* '':M_iClass_jTDC'' denotes a defined class that represents a subset of the target domain concept class '':TDC''. Every class '':M_iClass_jTDC'' is defined based on its relationship to the single corresponding class '':M_iClass_j'' that it is derived from.
* '':SpecificTDC_x'' denotes a primitive class that represents a subset of the target domain concept class '':TDC'' and an entity from the domain to be classified. Every class '':SpecificTDC_x'' is described based on its relationship to various classes '':M_iClass_j'' from potentially different modules. As a consequence of this relationship, the classes '':SpecificTDC_x'' could introduce the polyhierarchy scenarios in the ontology model that the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP aims to manage and untangle.

The implementation of a generic defined class '':M_iClass_jTDC'' is given as follows:
'':M_iClass_jTDC'' rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf '':TDC'' ;
owl:equivalentClass [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty '':hasModule_i'' ;
owl:someValuesFrom '':M_iClass_j''
] .

The implementation of a generic class '':SpecificTDC_x'' is given as follows:
'':SpecificTDC_x'' rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf '':TDC'' ,
[ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty '':hasModule_i'' ;
owl:someValuesFrom '':M_iClass_j''
] ,
[ ... rest of existential restrictions on property '':hasModule_i''
for every class '':M_iClass_j'' that participates
in the description of '':SpecificTDC_x''
] .

This implementation of the classes '':M_iClass_jTDC'' and '':SpecificTDC_x'' respectively, enable a reasoner to infer and maintain the subsumption relations between a given class '':SpecificTDC_x'' and the various classes '':M_iClass_jTDC'' that it is related to.
|Graphical Representation=NormalizationGenericStructure2.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Process Template
|Description=Mapping between the elements in the generic structure of a Faceted Classification Scheme and the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP.

The table below summarizes the alignment of the elements in the generic structure of both conceptual models. This alignment enables the conversion from a FCS to an OWL DL ontology by applying the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP:
* The first column (leftmost), contains the elements of a generic FCS as introduced in section '''Non-Ontological Resource''' above.
* The second column contains the elements of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP generic structure
as introduced in section '''Ontology''' above.
* The third column represents the selected OWL notation for the elements of a generic FCS in the context of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP generic structure.
* The forth column (rightmost), indicates the OWL implementation chosen for every element. The selection complies with the requirements of the normalization mechanism.

[[Image:MappingFCSNormalizationODP.png|center]]

Based on the principle of representating each facet of a FCS as a module of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP, the underlying ideas behind the mappings in the figure(table) above can be outlined as follows:
* The target domain concept ''TDC'' represents the domain of discourse of both a FCS and the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP. The primitive class '':TDC'' fulfills that role in the normalized ontology.
* A facet ''Facet_i'' from a generic FCS corresponds to a module '':Module_i'' in the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP, therefore it becomes a primitive class '':Facet_i'' in the normalized ontology model.
* A facet ''Facet_i'' from a FCS also becomes an object property '':hasFacet_i'' in the normalized ontology, given that for every module '':Module_i'' in the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP, there is an object property '':has_Module_i''.
* From the relationship between facet and module, it follows that a facet term ''F_iTerm_j'' from a FCS maps to a module subclass '':M_iClass_j'' from the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP. Both elements represents the same notion in their respective conceptual models. A subvidision, a refinement of the facet or module that they complement respectively. Therefore, a facet term ''F_iTerm_j'' from a FCS becomes a primitive class '':F_iTerm_j'' in the normalized ontology.
* A facet term ''F_iTerm_j'' from a FCS also produces a defined class '':F_iTerm_jTDC'' in the normalized ontology, given that for every primitive class '':M_iClass_j'' in the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP, there is a corresponding defined class '':M_iClass_jTDC''.
* Every item ''Item_x'' to be classified in the FCS aligns to a class '':Specific_x'' that is automatically classified by a reasoner in the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP. Therefore, every element ''Item_x'' is represented as a primitive class '':SpecificTDC_x'' in the normalized ontology.
|Graphical Representation=FacetedClassificationSchemeGenericStructure.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Scenario Example Template
|Description=To create an ontology model to represent an existing Faceted Classification Scheme for a specific domain concept.
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal NOR Example Template
|Description=The figure below recaps the final FCS developed for the "Dishwashing Detergent" domain example in [[Community:References/How_to_Make_a_Faceted_Classification_and_Put_It_On_the_Web_3|(Denton, 2003)]](§ 2.4). The elements of the schema fit into the generic structure of a FCS presented in section '''Non-Ontological Resource''' earlier, where:
* The ''TDC'' element is populated with the domain "Dishwashing Detergent".
* ''Facet_i'' elements are populated with the facets: "Agent", "Form", "Brand Name", "Scent", "Effect On Agent", and "Special Property".
* ''F_iTerm_j'' elements are populated with the terms or foci listed below (grouped by facet):
** Agent: dishwasher, person.
** Form: gel, gelpac, liquid, powder, tablet.
** Brand Name: Cascade, Electrasol, Ivory, No Name, Palmolive, President's Choice, Sunlight.
** Scent: green apple, green tea, lavender, lemon, mandarin, ocean breeze, orange blossom, orchard fresh, passion flower, ruby red grapefruit, ylang ylang.
** Effect on Agent: aroma therapy (subdivisions: invigorating, relaxing).
** Special Property: antibacterial.
* ''Item_x'' elements are populated in this case with two example items to classify:
** "President's Choice Antibacterial Hand Soap and Dishwashing Liquid".
** "Palmolive Aroma Therapy, Lavender and Ylang Ylang".

To illustrate the representation of a specific dishwashing detergent, let us reuse the two classification examples presented in Denton (2003)(S 2.4). Applying the "Dishwashing Detergent" FCS developed in the cited reference, the item "President's Choice Antibacterial Hand Soap and Dishwashing Liquid" is classified as follows:
* Agent: person
* Form: liquid
* Brand Name: President's Choice
* Scent: (none)
* Effect on Agent: (none)
* Special Property: antibacterial

The item "Palmolive Aroma Therapy, Lavender and Ylang Ylang," is classified as:
* Agent: person
* Form: liquid
* Brand Name: Palmolive
* Scent: lavender, ylang ylang
* Effect on Agent: aroma therapy
* Special Property: (none)
|Graphical Representation=Denton_-_2003_-_FCS_Dishwashing_Detergent.jpg
|Web Reference=http://www.miskatonic.org/library/facet-web-howto.html
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Ontology Example Template
|Description=OWL representation of the "Dishwashing Detergent" domain concept Faceted Classification Scheme applying the Normalization ODP.

[[Image:FacetedClassificationSchemeOntoExObjProp.png|center|frame|List of object properties.]]

The symbol (≡) denotes an OWL defined class.
|Graphical Representation=FacetedClassificationStructureOntologyExample.png
|Web Reference=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1666716/Attachments/detergent_fcs_normalisation_prot3x_owl.owl
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Process Example Template
|Description=According to the guidelines derived from the table in section '''Process''' above and the implementation of a class '':SpecificTDC_x'' given in section '''Ontology''' above, the description of the example detergent "President's Choice Antibacterial Hand Soap & Dishwashing Liquid" in the normalized ontology can be stated as follows:
:PresidentsPersonLiquidAntibacterial
rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf :DishDetergent ,
[ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty :hasAgent ;
owl:someValuesFrom :Person
] ,
[ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty :hasForm ;
owl:someValuesFrom :Liquid
] ,
[ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty :hasBrandName ;
owl:someValuesFrom :PresidentsChoice
] ,
[ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty :hasSpecialProperty ;
owl:someValuesFrom :Antibacterial
] .

The description of the example detergent "Palmolive Aroma Therapy, Lavender and Ylang Ylang," would be:
:PalmoliveAromaTherapyLavenderYlangYlang
rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf :DishDetergent ,
[ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty :hasAgent ;
owl:someValuesFrom :Person
] ,
[ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty :hasForm ;
owl:someValuesFrom :Liquid
] ,
[ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty :hasBrandName ;
owl:someValuesFrom :Palmolive
] ,
[ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty :hasScent ;
owl:someValuesFrom :Lavender
] ,
[ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty :hasScent ;
owl:someValuesFrom :YlangYlang
] ,
[ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty :hasEffectOnAgent ;
owl:someValuesFrom :AromaTherapy
] .

|Graphical Representation=MappingFCSNormalizationODP.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Additional Information Template
|SubmittedBy=BenedictoRodriguezCastro,
|Author=BenedictoRodriguezCastro, HughGlaser, LesCarr
|Related to=Submissions:Normalization, Submissions:Partition, Submissions:ClassAsPropertyValue
}}
{{Additional information header}}

{{Scenarios about me}}
{{Reviews about me}}
{{Modeling issues about me}}
{{My references}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP:2010
}}

Submissions:Faceted Classification Scheme

2010-09-06T02:27:47Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{Reengineering_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal General Information Template
|Name=[[Community:Faceted Classification Scheme|Faceted Classification Scheme]] (FCS)
|Problem=Ontological representation of a specific domain concept conceptualized using a Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal NOR Template
|Description=A FCS is defined as: "a set of mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive categories, each made by isolating one perspective on the items (a facet), that combine to completely describe all the objects in question, and which users can use, by searching and browsing, to find what they need" [[Community:References/How_to_Make_a_Faceted_Classification_and_Put_It_On_the_Web_3|(Denton, 2003)]].

The following notation is introduced to refer to the elements of a generic FCS in the figure below:
* ''Target Domain Concept'' (''TDC'') denotes the domain of discourse. The domain-specific concept targeted by the FCS.
* ''Facet_i'' denotes one of the facets of the FCS.
* ''F_iTerm_j'' denotes one of the terms of ''Facet_i''.
* ''Item_x'' denotes one the items from the domain of discourse (''TDC'') to be classified.
|Graphical Representation=FacetedClassificationScheme_GenericStructure.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Ontology Template
|Description=Generic structure of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP used to represent a Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).

[[Image:NormalizationGenericStructure1.png|center|frame|The symbol (≡) denotes an OWL defined class.]]

The figure below represents a further generalization of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP and introduces the following notation:
* '':TDC'' denotes a primitive class representing the domain concept being normalized.
* '':Module_i'' denotes a primitive class that represents one of the modules.
* '':M_iClass_j'' denotes a primitive class that represents a subset of the module class '':Module_i''.
* '':hasModule_i'' denotes an object property that links every module '':Module_i'' to the different subclasses of the target domain concept '':M_iClass_jTDC'' and '':SpecificTDC_x''.
* '':M_iClass_jTDC'' denotes a defined class that represents a subset of the target domain concept class '':TDC''. Every class '':M_iClass_jTDC'' is defined based on its relationship to the single corresponding class '':M_iClass_j'' that it is derived from.
* '':SpecificTDC_x'' denotes a primitive class that represents a subset of the target domain concept class '':TDC'' and an entity from the domain to be classified. Every class '':SpecificTDC_x'' is described based on its relationship to various classes '':M_iClass_j'' from potentially different modules. As a consequence of this relationship, the classes '':SpecificTDC_x'' could introduce the polyhierarchy scenarios in the ontology model that the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP aims to manage and untangle.

The implementation of a generic defined class '':M_iClass_jTDC'' is given as follows:
'':M_iClass_jTDC'' rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf '':TDC'' ;
owl:equivalentClass [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty '':hasModule_i'' ;
owl:someValuesFrom '':M_iClass_j''
] .

The implementation of a generic class '':SpecificTDC_x'' is given as follows:
'':SpecificTDC_x'' rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf '':TDC'' ,
[ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty '':hasModule_i'' ;
owl:someValuesFrom '':M_iClass_j''
] ,
[ ... rest of existential restrictions on property '':hasModule_i''
for every class '':M_iClass_j'' that participates
in the description of '':SpecificTDC_x''
] .

This implementation of the classes '':M_iClass_jTDC'' and '':SpecificTDC_x'' respectively, enable a reasoner to infer and maintain the subsumption relations between a given class '':SpecificTDC_x'' and the various classes '':M_iClass_jTDC'' that it is related to.
|Graphical Representation=NormalizationGenericStructure2.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Process Template
|Description=Mapping between the elements in the generic structure of a Faceted Classification Scheme and the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP.

The table below summarizes the alignment of the elements in the generic structure of both conceptual models. This alignment enables the conversion from a FCS to an OWL DL ontology by applying the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP:
* The first column (leftmost), contains the elements of a generic FCS as introduced in section '''Non-Ontological Resource''' above.
* The second column contains the elements of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP generic structure
as introduced in section '''Ontology''' above.
* The third column represents the selected OWL notation for the elements of a generic FCS in the context of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP generic structure.
* The forth column (rightmost), indicates the OWL implementation chosen for every element. The selection complies with the requirements of the normalization mechanism.

[[Image:MappingFCSNormalizationODP.png|center]]

Based on the principle of representating each facet of a FCS as a module of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP, the underlying ideas behind the mappings in the figure(table) above can be outlined as follows:
* The target domain concept ''TDC'' represents the domain of discourse of both a FCS and the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP. The primitive class '':TDC'' fulfills that role in the normalized ontology.
* A facet ''Facet_i'' from a generic FCS corresponds to a module '':Module_i'' in the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP, therefore it becomes a primitive class '':Facet_i'' in the normalized ontology model.
* A facet ''Facet_i'' from a FCS also becomes an object property '':hasFacet_i'' in the normalized ontology, given that for every module '':Module_i'' in the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP, there is an object property '':has_Module_i''.
* From the relationship between facet and module, it follows that a facet term ''F_iTerm_j'' from a FCS maps to a module subclass '':M_iClass_j'' from the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP. Both elements represents the same notion in their respective conceptual models. A subvidision, a refinement of the facet or module that they complement respectively. Therefore, a facet term ''F_iTerm_j'' from a FCS becomes a primitive class '':F_iTerm_j'' in the normalized ontology.
* A facet term ''F_iTerm_j'' from a FCS also produces a defined class '':F_iTerm_jTDC'' in the normalized ontology, given that for every primitive class '':M_iClass_j'' in the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP, there is a corresponding defined class '':M_iClass_jTDC''.
* Every item ''Item_x'' to be classified in the FCS aligns to a class '':Specific_x'' that is automatically classified by a reasoner in the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP. Therefore, every element ''Item_x'' is represented as a primitive class '':SpecificTDC_x'' in the normalized ontology.
|Graphical Representation=FacetedClassificationSchemeGenericStructure.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Scenario Example Template
|Description=To create an ontology model to represent an existing Faceted Classification Scheme for a specific domain concept.
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal NOR Example Template
|Description=The figure below recaps the final FCS developed for the "Dishwashing Detergent" domain example in [[Community:References/How_to_Make_a_Faceted_Classification_and_Put_It_On_the_Web_3|(Denton, 2003)]](§ 2.4). The elements of the schema fit into the generic structure of a FCS presented in section '''Non-Ontological Resource''' earlier, where:
* The ''TDC'' element is populated with the domain "Dishwashing Detergent".
* ''Facet_i'' elements are populated with the facets: "Agent", "Form", "Brand Name", "Scent", "Effect On Agent", and "Special Property".
* ''F_iTerm_j'' elements are populated with the terms or foci listed below (grouped by facet):
** Agent: dishwasher, person.
** Form: gel, gelpac, liquid, powder, tablet.
** Brand Name: Cascade, Electrasol, Ivory, No Name, Palmolive, President's Choice, Sunlight.
** Scent: green apple, green tea, lavender, lemon, mandarin, ocean breeze, orange blossom, orchard fresh, passion flower, ruby red grapefruit, ylang ylang.
** Effect on Agent: aroma therapy (subdivisions: invigorating, relaxing).
** Special Property: antibacterial.
* ''Item_x'' elements are populated in this case with two example items to classify:
** "President's Choice Antibacterial Hand Soap and Dishwashing Liquid".
** "Palmolive Aroma Therapy, Lavender and Ylang Ylang".

To illustrate the representation of a specific dishwashing detergent, let us reuse the two classification examples presented in Denton (2003)(S 2.4). Applying the "Dishwashing Detergent" FCS developed in the cited reference, the item "President's Choice Antibacterial Hand Soap and Dishwashing Liquid" is classified as follows:
* Agent: person
* Form: liquid
* Brand Name: President's Choice
* Scent: (none)
* Effect on Agent: (none)
* Special Property: antibacterial

The item "Palmolive Aroma Therapy, Lavender and Ylang Ylang," is classified as:
* Agent: person
* Form: liquid
* Brand Name: Palmolive
* Scent: lavender, ylang ylang
* Effect on Agent: aroma therapy
* Special Property: (none)

|Graphical Representation=Denton_-_2003_-_FCS_Dishwashing_Detergent.jpg
|Web Reference=http://www.miskatonic.org/library/facet-web-howto.html
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Ontology Example Template
|Description=OWL representation of the "Dishwashing Detergent" domain concept Faceted Classification Scheme applying the Normalization ODP.

[[Image:FacetedClassificationSchemeOntoExObjProp.png|center|frame|List of object properties.]]

The symbol (≡) denotes an OWL defined class.
|Graphical Representation=FacetedClassificationStructureOntologyExample.png
|Web Reference=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1666716/Attachments/detergent_fcs_normalisation_prot3x_owl.owl
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Process Example Template
|Description=Using the mappings from the table.
|Graphical Representation=MappingFCSNormalizationODP.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Additional Information Template
|SubmittedBy=BenedictoRodriguezCastro,
|Author=BenedictoRodriguezCastro, HughGlaser, LesCarr
|Related to=Submissions:Normalization, Submissions:Partition, Submissions:ClassAsPropertyValue
}}
{{Additional information header}}

{{Scenarios about me}}
{{Reviews about me}}
{{Modeling issues about me}}
{{My references}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP:2010
}}

Submissions:Faceted Classification Scheme

2010-09-06T02:24:16Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{Reengineering_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal General Information Template
|Name=[[Community:Faceted Classification Scheme|Faceted Classification Scheme]] (FCS)
|Problem=Ontological representation of a specific domain concept conceptualized using a Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal NOR Template
|Description=A FCS is defined as: "a set of mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive categories, each made by isolating one perspective on the items (a facet), that combine to completely describe all the objects in question, and which users can use, by searching and browsing, to find what they need" [[Community:References/How_to_Make_a_Faceted_Classification_and_Put_It_On_the_Web_3|(Denton, 2003)]].

The following notation is introduced to refer to the elements of a generic FCS in the figure below:
* ''Target Domain Concept'' (''TDC'') denotes the domain of discourse. The domain-specific concept targeted by the FCS.
* ''Facet_i'' denotes one of the facets of the FCS.
* ''F_iTerm_j'' denotes one of the terms of ''Facet_i''.
* ''Item_x'' denotes one the items from the domain of discourse (''TDC'') to be classified.
|Graphical Representation=FacetedClassificationScheme_GenericStructure.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Ontology Template
|Description=Generic structure of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP used to represent a Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).

[[Image:NormalizationGenericStructure1.png|center|frame|The symbol (≡) denotes an OWL defined class.]]

The figure below represents a further generalization of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP and introduces the following notation:
* '':TDC'' denotes a primitive class representing the domain concept being normalized.
* '':Module_i'' denotes a primitive class that represents one of the modules.
* '':M_iClass_j'' denotes a primitive class that represents a subset of the module class '':Module_i''.
* '':hasModule_i'' denotes an object property that links every module '':Module_i'' to the different subclasses of the target domain concept '':M_iClass_jTDC'' and '':SpecificTDC_x''.
* '':M_iClass_jTDC'' denotes a defined class that represents a subset of the target domain concept class '':TDC''. Every class '':M_iClass_jTDC'' is defined based on its relationship to the single corresponding class '':M_iClass_j'' that it is derived from.
* '':SpecificTDC_x'' denotes a primitive class that represents a subset of the target domain concept class '':TDC'' and an entity from the domain to be classified. Every class '':SpecificTDC_x'' is described based on its relationship to various classes '':M_iClass_j'' from potentially different modules. As a consequence of this relationship, the classes '':SpecificTDC_x'' could introduce the polyhierarchy scenarios in the ontology model that the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP aims to manage and untangle.

The implementation of a generic defined class '':M_iClass_jTDC'' is given as follows:
'':M_iClass_jTDC'' rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf '':TDC'' ;
owl:equivalentClass [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty '':hasModule_i'' ;
owl:someValuesFrom '':M_iClass_j''
] .

The implementation of a generic class '':SpecificTDC_x'' is given as follows:
'':SpecificTDC_x'' rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf '':TDC'' ,
[ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty '':hasModule_i'' ;
owl:someValuesFrom '':M_iClass_j''
] ,
[ ... rest of existential restrictions on property '':hasModule_i''
for every class '':M_iClass_j'' that participates
in the description of '':SpecificTDC_x''
] .

This implementation of the classes '':M_iClass_jTDC'' and '':SpecificTDC_x'' respectively, enable a reasoner to infer and maintain the subsumption relations between a given class '':SpecificTDC_x'' and the various classes '':M_iClass_jTDC'' that it is related to.
|Graphical Representation=NormalizationGenericStructure2.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Process Template
|Description=Mapping between the elements in the generic structure of a Faceted Classification Scheme and the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP.

The table below summarizes the alignment of the elements in the generic structure of both conceptual models. This alignment enables the conversion from a FCS to an OWL DL ontology by applying the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP:
* The first column (leftmost), contains the elements of a generic FCS as introduced in section '''Non-Ontological Resource''' above.
* The second column contains the elements of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP generic structure
as introduced in section '''Ontology''' above.
* The third column represents the selected OWL notation for the elements of a generic FCS in the context of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP generic structure.
* The forth column (rightmost), indicates the OWL implementation chosen for every element. The selection complies with the requirements of the normalization mechanism.

[[Image:MappingFCSNormalizationODP.png|center]]

Based on the principle of representating each facet of a FCS as a module of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP, the underlying ideas behind the mappings in the figure(table) above can be outlined as follows:
* The target domain concept ''TDC'' represents the domain of discourse of both a FCS and the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP. The primitive class '':TDC'' fulfills that role in the normalized ontology.
* A facet ''Facet_i'' from a generic FCS corresponds to a module '':Module_i'' in the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP, therefore it becomes a primitive class '':Facet_i'' in the normalized ontology model.
* A facet ''Facet_i'' from a FCS also becomes an object property '':hasFacet_i'' in the normalized ontology, given that for every module '':Module_i'' in the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP, there is an object property '':has_Module_i''.
* From the relationship between facet and module, it follows that a facet term ''F_iTerm_j'' from a FCS maps to a module subclass '':M_iClass_j'' from the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP. Both elements represents the same notion in their respective conceptual models. A subvidision, a refinement of the facet or module that they complement respectively. Therefore, a facet term ''F_iTerm_j'' from a FCS becomes a primitive class '':F_iTerm_j'' in the normalized ontology.
* A facet term ''F_iTerm_j'' from a FCS also produces a defined class '':F_iTerm_jTDC'' in the normalized ontology, given that for every primitive class '':M_iClass_j'' in the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP, there is a corresponding defined class '':M_iClass_jTDC''.
* Every item ''Item_x'' to be classified in the FCS aligns to a class '':Specific_x'' that is automatically classified by a reasoner in the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP. Therefore, every element ''Item_x'' is represented as a primitive class '':SpecificTDC_x'' in the normalized ontology.
|Graphical Representation=FacetedClassificationSchemeGenericStructure.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Scenario Example Template
|Description=To create an ontology model to represent an existing Faceted Classification Scheme for a specific domain concept.
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal NOR Example Template
|Description=The figure below recaps the final FCS developed for the "Dishwashing Detergent" domain example in [[Community:References/How_to_Make_a_Faceted_Classification_and_Put_It_On_the_Web_3|(Denton, 2003)]](§ 2.4). The elements of the schema fit into the generic structure of a FCS presented in section '''Non-Ontological Resource''' earlier, where:
* The ''TDC'' element is populated with the domain "Dishwashing Detergent".
* ''Facet_i'' elements are populated with the facets: "Agent", "Form", "Brand Name", "Scent", "Effect On Agent", and "Special Property".
* ''F_iTerm_j'' elements are populated with the terms or foci listed below (grouped by facet):
** Agent: dishwasher, person.
** Form: gel, gelpac, liquid, powder, tablet.
** Brand Name: Cascade, Electrasol, Ivory, No Name, Palmolive, President's Choice, Sunlight.
** Scent: green apple, green tea, lavender, lemon, mandarin, ocean breeze, orange blossom, orchard fresh, passion flower, ruby red grapefruit, ylang ylang.
** Effect on Agent: aroma therapy (subdivisions: invigorating, relaxing).
** Special Property: antibacterial.
* ''Item_x'' elements are populated in this case with two example items to classify:
** "President's Choice Antibacterial Hand Soap and Dishwashing Liquid".
** "Palmolive Aroma Therapy, Lavender and Ylang Ylang".
|Graphical Representation=Denton_-_2003_-_FCS_Dishwashing_Detergent.jpg
|Web Reference=http://www.miskatonic.org/library/facet-web-howto.html
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Ontology Example Template
|Description=OWL representation of the "Dishwashing Detergent" domain concept Faceted Classification Scheme applying the Normalization ODP.

[[Image:FacetedClassificationSchemeOntoExObjProp.png|center|frame|List of object properties.]]

The symbol (≡) denotes an OWL defined class.
|Graphical Representation=FacetedClassificationStructureOntologyExample.png
|Web Reference=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1666716/Attachments/detergent_fcs_normalisation_prot3x_owl.owl
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Process Example Template
|Description=Using the mappings from the table.
|Graphical Representation=MappingFCSNormalizationODP.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Additional Information Template
|SubmittedBy=BenedictoRodriguezCastro,
|Author=BenedictoRodriguezCastro, HughGlaser, LesCarr
|Related to=Submissions:Normalization, Submissions:Partition, Submissions:ClassAsPropertyValue
}}
{{Additional information header}}

{{Scenarios about me}}
{{Reviews about me}}
{{Modeling issues about me}}
{{My references}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP:2010
}}

Submissions:Faceted Classification Scheme

2010-09-06T02:08:24Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{Reengineering_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal General Information Template
|Name=[[Community:Faceted Classification Scheme|Faceted Classification Scheme]] (FCS)
|Problem=Ontological representation of a specific domain concept conceptualized using a Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal NOR Template
|Description=A FCS is defined as: "a set of mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive categories, each made by isolating one perspective on the items (a facet), that combine to completely describe all the objects in question, and which users can use, by searching and browsing, to find what they need" [[Community:References/How_to_Make_a_Faceted_Classification_and_Put_It_On_the_Web_3|(Denton, 2003)]].

The following notation is introduced to refer to the elements of a generic FCS in the figure below:
* ''Target Domain Concept'' (''TDC'') denotes the domain of discourse. The domain-specific concept targeted by the FCS.
* ''Facet_i'' denotes one of the facets of the FCS.
* ''F_iTerm_j'' denotes one of the terms of ''Facet_i''.
* ''Item_x'' denotes one the items from the domain of discourse (''TDC'') to be classified.
|Graphical Representation=FacetedClassificationScheme_GenericStructure.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Ontology Template
|Description=Generic structure of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP used to represent a Faceted Classification Scheme.

The symbol (≡) denotes an OWL defined class.

[[Image:NormalizationGenericStructure1.png|center|Generic structure of the Normalization ODP used to represent a FCS.]]

The figure below represents a further generalization of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP and introduces the following notation:
* '':TDC'' denotes a primitive class representing the domain concept being normalized.
* '':Module_i'' denotes a primitive class that represents one of the modules.
* '':M_iClass_j'' denotes a primitive class that represents a subset of the module class '':Module_i''.
* '':hasModule_i'' denotes an object property that links every module '':Module_i'' to the different subclasses of the target domain concept '':M_iClass_jTDC'' and '':SpecificTDC_x''.
* '':M_iClass_jTDC'' denotes a defined class that represents a subset of the target domain concept class '':TDC''. Every class '':M_iClass_jTDC'' is defined based on its relationship to the single corresponding class '':M_iClass_j'' that it is derived from.
* '':SpecificTDC_x'' denotes a primitive class that represents a subset of the target domain concept class '':TDC'' and an entity from the domain to be classified. Every class '':SpecificTDC_x'' is described based on its relationship to various classes '':M_iClass_j'' from potentially different modules. As a consequence of this relationship, the classes '':SpecificTDC_x'' could introduce the polyhierarchy scenarios in the ontology model that the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP aims to manage and untangle.

The implementation of a generic defined class '':M_iClass_jTDC'' is given as follows:
'':M_iClass_jTDC'' rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf '':TDC'' ;
owl:equivalentClass [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty '':hasModule_i'' ;
owl:someValuesFrom '':M_iClass_j''
] .

The implementation of a generic class '':SpecificTDC_x'' is given as follows:
'':SpecificTDC_x'' rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf '':TDC'' ,
[ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty '':hasModule_i'' ;
owl:someValuesFrom '':M_iClass_j''
] ,
[ ... rest of existential restrictions on property '':hasModule_i''
for every class '':M_iClass_j'' that participates
in the description of '':SpecificTDC_x''
] .

This implementation of the classes '':M_iClass_jTDC'' and '':SpecificTDC_x'' respectively, enable a reasoner to infer and maintain the subsumption relations between a given class '':SpecificTDC_x'' and the various classes '':M_iClass_jTDC'' that it is related to.

|Graphical Representation=NormalizationGenericStructure2.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Process Template
|Description=Mapping between the elements in the generic structure of a Faceted Classification Scheme and the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP.

The table below summarizes the alignment of the elements in the generic structure of both conceptual models. This alignment enables the conversion from a FCS to an OWL DL ontology by applying the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP:
* The first column (leftmost), contains the elements of a generic FCS as introduced in section '''Non-Ontological Resource''' above.
* The second column contains the elements of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP generic structure
as introduced in section '''Ontology''' above.
* The third column represents the selected OWL notation for the elements of a generic FCS in the context of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP generic structure.
* The forth column (rightmost), indicates the OWL implementation chosen for every element. The selection complies with the requirements of the normalization mechanism.

[[Image:MappingFCSNormalizationODP.png|center]]

Based on the principle of representating each facet of a FCS as a module of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP, the underlying ideas behind the mappings in the figure(table) above can be outlined as follows:
* The target domain concept ''TDC'' represents the domain of discourse of both a FCS and the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP. The primitive class '':TDC'' fulfills that role in the normalized ontology.
* A facet ''Facet_i'' from a generic FCS corresponds to a module '':Module_i'' in the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP, therefore it becomes a primitive class '':Facet_i'' in the normalized ontology model.
* A facet ''Facet_i'' from a FCS also becomes an object property '':hasFacet_i'' in the normalized ontology, given that for every module '':Module_i'' in the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP, there is an object property '':has_Module_i''.
* From the relationship between facet and module, it follows that a facet term ''F_iTerm_j'' from a FCS maps to a module subclass '':M_iClass_j'' from the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP. Both elements represents the same notion in their respective conceptual models. A subvidision, a refinement of the facet or module that they complement respectively. Therefore, a facet term ''F_iTerm_j'' from a FCS becomes a primitive class '':F_iTerm_j'' in the normalized ontology.
* A facet term ''F_iTerm_j'' from a FCS also produces a defined class '':F_iTerm_jTDC'' in the normalized ontology, given that for every primitive class '':M_iClass_j'' in the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP, there is a corresponding defined class '':M_iClass_jTDC''.
* Every item ''Item_x'' to be classified in the FCS aligns to a class '':Specific_x'' that is automatically classified by a reasoner in the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP. Therefore, every element ''Item_x'' is represented as a primitive class '':SpecificTDC_x'' in the normalized ontology.
|Graphical Representation=FacetedClassificationSchemeGenericStructure.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Scenario Example Template
|Description=To create an ontology model to represent an existing Faceted Classification Scheme for a specific domain concept.
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal NOR Example Template
|Description=The figure below recaps the final FCS developed for the "Dishwashing Detergent" domain example in [[Community:References/How_to_Make_a_Faceted_Classification_and_Put_It_On_the_Web_3|(Denton, 2003)]](§ 2.4). The elements of the schema fit into the generic structure of a FCS presented in section '''Non-Ontological Resource''' earlier, where:
* The ''TDC'' element is populated with the domain "Dishwashing Detergent".
* ''Facet_i'' elements are populated with the facets: "Agent", "Form", "Brand Name", "Scent", "Effect On Agent", and "Special Property".
* ''F_iTerm_j'' elements are populated with the terms or foci listed below (grouped by facet):
** Agent: dishwasher, person.
** Form: gel, gelpac, liquid, powder, tablet.
** Brand Name: Cascade, Electrasol, Ivory, No Name, Palmolive, President's Choice, Sunlight.
** Scent: green apple, green tea, lavender, lemon, mandarin, ocean breeze, orange blossom, orchard fresh, passion flower, ruby red grapefruit, ylang ylang.
** Effect on Agent: aroma therapy (subdivisions: invigorating, relaxing).
** Special Property: antibacterial.
* ''Item_x'' elements are populated in this case with two example items to classify:
** "President's Choice Antibacterial Hand Soap and Dishwashing Liquid".
** "Palmolive Aroma Therapy, Lavender and Ylang Ylang".
|Graphical Representation=Denton_-_2003_-_FCS_Dishwashing_Detergent.jpg
|Web Reference=http://www.miskatonic.org/library/facet-web-howto.html
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Ontology Example Template
|Description=OWL representation of the "Dishwashing Detergent" domain concept Faceted Classification Scheme applying the Normalization ODP.

The symbol (≡) denotes an OWL defined class.

[[Image:FacetedClassificationSchemeOntoExObjProp.png]]
|Graphical Representation=FacetedClassificationStructureOntologyExample.png
|Web Reference=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1666716/Attachments/detergent_fcs_normalisation_prot3x_owl.owl
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Process Example Template
|Description=Using the mappings from the table.
|Graphical Representation=MappingFCSNormalizationODP.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Additional Information Template
|SubmittedBy=BenedictoRodriguezCastro,
|Author=BenedictoRodriguezCastro, HughGlaser, LesCarr
|Related to=Submissions:Normalization, Submissions:Partition, Submissions:ClassAsPropertyValue
}}
{{Additional information header}}

{{Scenarios about me}}
{{Reviews about me}}
{{Modeling issues about me}}
{{My references}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP:2010
}}

Submissions:Faceted Classification Scheme

2010-09-06T01:53:01Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{Reengineering_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal General Information Template
|Name=[[Community:Faceted Classification Scheme|Faceted Classification Scheme]] (FCS)
|Problem=Ontological representation of a specific domain concept conceptualized using a Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal NOR Template
|Description=A FCS is defined as: "a set of mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive categories, each made by isolating one perspective on the items (a facet), that combine to completely describe all the objects in question, and which users can use, by searching and browsing, to find what they need" [[Community:References/How_to_Make_a_Faceted_Classification_and_Put_It_On_the_Web_3|(Denton, 2003)]].

The following notation is introduced to refer to the elements of a generic FCS in the figure below:
* ''Target Domain Concept'' (''TDC'') denotes the domain of discourse. The domain-specific concept targeted by the FCS.
* ''Facet_i'' denotes one of the facets of the FCS.
* ''F_iTerm_j'' denotes one of the terms of ''Facet_i''.
* ''Item_x'' denotes one the items from the domain of discourse (''TDC'') to be classified.
|Graphical Representation=FacetedClassificationScheme_GenericStructure.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Ontology Template
|Description=Generic structure of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP used to represent a Faceted Classification Scheme.

The symbol (≡) denotes an OWL defined class.

[[Image:NormalizationGenericStructure1.png|center|Generic structure of the Normalization ODP used to represent a FCS.]]

The figure below represents a further generalization of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP and introduces the following notation:
* '':TDC'' denotes a primitive class representing the domain concept being normalized.
* '':Module_i'' denotes a primitive class that represents one of the modules.
* '':M_iClass_j'' denotes a primitive class that represents a subset of the module class '':Module_i''.
* '':hasModule_i'' denotes an object property that links every module '':Module_i'' to the different subclasses of the target domain concept '':M_iClass_jTDC'' and '':SpecificTDC_x''.
* '':M_iClass_jTDC'' denotes a defined class that represents a subset of the target domain concept class '':TDC''. Every class '':M_iClass_jTDC'' is defined based on its relationship to the single corresponding class '':M_iClass_j'' that it is derived from.
* '':SpecificTDC_x'' denotes a primitive class that represents a subset of the target domain concept class '':TDC'' and an entity from the domain to be classified. Every class '':SpecificTDC_x'' is described based on its relationship to various classes '':M_iClass_j'' from potentially different modules. As a consequence of this relationship, the classes '':SpecificTDC_x'' could introduce the polyhierarchy scenarios in the ontology model that the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP aims to manage and untangle.
|Graphical Representation=NormalizationGenericStructure2.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Process Template
|Description=Mapping between the elements in the generic structure of a Faceted Classification Scheme and the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP.

The table below summarizes the alignment of the elements in the generic structure of both conceptual models. This alignment enables the conversion from a FCS to an OWL DL ontology by applying the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP:
* The first column (leftmost), contains the elements of a generic FCS as introduced in section '''Non-Ontological Resource''' above.
* The second column contains the elements of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP generic structure
as introduced in section '''Ontology''' above.
* The third column represents the selected OWL notation for the elements of a generic FCS in the context of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP generic structure.
* The forth column (rightmost), indicates the OWL implementation chosen for every element. The selection complies with the requirements of the normalization mechanism.

[[Image:MappingFCSNormalizationODP.png|center]]

Based on the principle of representating each facet of a FCS as a module of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP, the underlying ideas behind the mappings in the figure(table) above can be outlined as follows:
* The target domain concept ''TDC'' represents the domain of discourse of both a FCS and the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP. The primitive class '':TDC'' fulfills that role in the normalized ontology.
* A facet ''Facet_i'' from a generic FCS corresponds to a module '':Module_i'' in the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP, therefore it becomes a primitive class '':Facet_i'' in the normalized ontology model.
* A facet ''Facet_i'' from a FCS also becomes an object property '':hasFacet_i'' in the normalized ontology, given that for every module '':Module_i'' in the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP, there is an object property '':has_Module_i''.
* From the relationship between facet and module, it follows that a facet term ''F_iTerm_j'' from a FCS maps to a module subclass '':M_iClass_j'' from the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP. Both elements represents the same notion in their respective conceptual models. A subvidision, a refinement of the facet or module that they complement respectively. Therefore, a facet term ''F_iTerm_j'' from a FCS becomes a primitive class '':F_iTerm_j'' in the normalized ontology.
* A facet term ''F_iTerm_j'' from a FCS also produces a defined class '':F_iTerm_jTDC'' in the normalized ontology, given that for every primitive class '':M_iClass_j'' in the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP, there is a corresponding defined class '':M_iClass_jTDC''.
* Every item ''Item_x'' to be classified in the FCS aligns to a class '':Specific_x'' that is automatically classified by a reasoner in the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP. Therefore, every element ''Item_x'' is represented as a primitive class '':SpecificTDC_x'' in the normalized ontology.
|Graphical Representation=FacetedClassificationSchemeGenericStructure.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Scenario Example Template
|Description=To create an ontology model to represent an existing Faceted Classification Scheme for a specific domain concept.
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal NOR Example Template
|Description=The figure below recaps the final FCS developed for the "Dishwashing Detergent" domain example in [[Community:References/How_to_Make_a_Faceted_Classification_and_Put_It_On_the_Web_3|(Denton, 2003)]](§ 2.4). The elements of the schema fit into the generic structure of a FCS presented in section '''Non-Ontological Resource''' earlier, where:
* The ''TDC'' element is populated with the domain "Dishwashing Detergent".
* ''Facet_i'' elements are populated with the facets: "Agent", "Form", "Brand Name", "Scent", "Effect On Agent", and "Special Property".
* ''F_iTerm_j'' elements are populated with the terms or foci listed below (grouped by facet):
** Agent: dishwasher, person.
** Form: gel, gelpac, liquid, powder, tablet.
** Brand Name: Cascade, Electrasol, Ivory, No Name, Palmolive, President's Choice, Sunlight.
** Scent: green apple, green tea, lavender, lemon, mandarin, ocean breeze, orange blossom, orchard fresh, passion flower, ruby red grapefruit, ylang ylang.
** Effect on Agent: aroma therapy (subdivisions: invigorating, relaxing).
** Special Property: antibacterial.
* ''Item_x'' elements are populated in this case with two example items to classify:
** "President's Choice Antibacterial Hand Soap and Dishwashing Liquid".
** "Palmolive Aroma Therapy, Lavender and Ylang Ylang".
|Graphical Representation=Denton_-_2003_-_FCS_Dishwashing_Detergent.jpg
|Web Reference=http://www.miskatonic.org/library/facet-web-howto.html
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Ontology Example Template
|Description=OWL representation of the "Dishwashing Detergent" domain concept Faceted Classification Scheme applying the Normalization ODP.

The symbol (≡) denotes an OWL defined class.

[[Image:FacetedClassificationSchemeOntoExObjProp.png]]
|Graphical Representation=FacetedClassificationStructureOntologyExample.png
|Web Reference=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1666716/Attachments/detergent_fcs_normalisation_prot3x_owl.owl
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Process Example Template
|Description=Using the mappings from the table.
|Graphical Representation=MappingFCSNormalizationODP.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Additional Information Template
|SubmittedBy=BenedictoRodriguezCastro,
|Author=BenedictoRodriguezCastro, HughGlaser, LesCarr
|Related to=Submissions:Normalization, Submissions:Partition, Submissions:ClassAsPropertyValue
}}
{{Additional information header}}

{{Scenarios about me}}
{{Reviews about me}}
{{Modeling issues about me}}
{{My references}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP:2010
}}

Submissions:Faceted Classification Scheme

2010-09-06T01:47:34Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{Reengineering_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal General Information Template
|Name=[[Community:Faceted Classification Scheme|Faceted Classification Scheme]] (FCS)
|Problem=Ontological representation of a specific domain concept conceptualized using a Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal NOR Template
|Description=A FCS is defined as: "a set of mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive categories, each made by isolating one perspective on the items (a facet), that combine to completely describe all the objects in question, and which users can use, by searching and browsing, to find what they need" [http://www.miskatonic.org/library/facet-web-howto.html (Denton, 2003)].

The following notation is introduced to refer to the elements of a generic FCS in the figure below:
* ''Target Domain Concept'' (''TDC'') denotes the domain of discourse. The domain-specific concept targeted by the FCS.
* ''Facet_i'' denotes one of the facets of the FCS.
* ''F_iTerm_j'' denotes one of the terms of ''Facet_i''.
* ''Item_x'' denotes one the items from the domain of discourse (''TDC'') to be classified.
|Graphical Representation=FacetedClassificationScheme_GenericStructure.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Ontology Template
|Description=Generic structure of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP used to represent a Faceted Classification Scheme.

The symbol (≡) denotes an OWL defined class.

[[Image:NormalizationGenericStructure1.png|center|Generic structure of the Normalization ODP used to represent a FCS.]]

The figure below represents a further generalization of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP and introduces the following notation:
* '':TDC'' denotes a primitive class representing the domain concept being normalized.
* '':Module_i'' denotes a primitive class that represents one of the modules.
* '':M_iClass_j'' denotes a primitive class that represents a subset of the module class '':Module_i''.
* '':hasModule_i'' denotes an object property that links every module '':Module_i'' to the different subclasses of the target domain concept '':M_iClass_jTDC'' and '':SpecificTDC_x''.
* '':M_iClass_jTDC'' denotes a defined class that represents a subset of the target domain concept class '':TDC''. Every class '':M_iClass_jTDC'' is defined based on its relationship to the single corresponding class '':M_iClass_j'' that it is derived from.
* '':SpecificTDC_x'' denotes a primitive class that represents a subset of the target domain concept class '':TDC'' and an entity from the domain to be classified. Every class '':SpecificTDC_x'' is described based on its relationship to various classes '':M_iClass_j'' from potentially different modules. As a consequence of this relationship, the classes '':SpecificTDC_x'' could introduce the polyhierarchy scenarios in the ontology model that the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP aims to manage and untangle.
|Graphical Representation=NormalizationGenericStructure2.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Process Template
|Description=Mapping between the elements in the generic structure of a Faceted Classification Scheme and the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP.

The table below summarizes the alignment of the elements in the generic structure of both conceptual models. This alignment enables the conversion from a FCS to an OWL DL ontology by applying the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP:
* The first column (leftmost), contains the elements of a generic FCS as introduced in section '''Non-Ontological Resource''' above.
* The second column contains the elements of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP generic structure
as introduced in section '''Ontology''' above.
* The third column represents the selected OWL notation for the elements of a generic FCS in the context of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP generic structure.
* The forth column (rightmost), indicates the OWL implementation chosen for every element. The selection complies with the requirements of the normalization mechanism.

[[Image:MappingFCSNormalizationODP.png|center]]

Based on the principle of representating each facet of a FCS as a module of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP, the underlying ideas behind the mappings in the figure(table) above can be outlined as follows:
* The target domain concept ''TDC'' represents the domain of discourse of both a FCS and the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP. The primitive class '':TDC'' fulfills that role in the normalized ontology.
* A facet ''Facet_i'' from a generic FCS corresponds to a module '':Module_i'' in the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP, therefore it becomes a primitive class '':Facet_i'' in the normalized ontology model.
* A facet ''Facet_i'' from a FCS also becomes an object property '':hasFacet_i'' in the normalized ontology, given that for every module '':Module_i'' in the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP, there is an object property '':has_Module_i''.
* From the relationship between facet and module, it follows that a facet term ''F_iTerm_j'' from a FCS maps to a module subclass '':M_iClass_j'' from the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP. Both elements represents the same notion in their respective conceptual models. A subvidision, a refinement of the facet or module that they complement respectively. Therefore, a facet term ''F_iTerm_j'' from a FCS becomes a primitive class '':F_iTerm_j'' in the normalized ontology.
* A facet term ''F_iTerm_j'' from a FCS also produces a defined class '':F_iTerm_jTDC'' in the normalized ontology, given that for every primitive class '':M_iClass_j'' in the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP, there is a corresponding defined class '':M_iClass_jTDC''.
* Every item ''Item_x'' to be classified in the FCS aligns to a class '':Specific_x'' that is automatically classified by a reasoner in the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP. Therefore, every element ''Item_x'' is represented as a primitive class '':SpecificTDC_x'' in the normalized ontology.
|Graphical Representation=FacetedClassificationSchemeGenericStructure.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Scenario Example Template
|Description=To create an ontology model to represent an existing Faceted Classification Scheme for a specific domain concept.
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal NOR Example Template
|Description=The figure below recaps the final FCS developed for the "Dishwashing Detergent" domain example in [http://www.miskatonic.org/library/facet-web-howto.html (Denton, 2003)](§ 2.4). The elements of the schema fit into the generic structure of a FCS presented in section '''Non-Ontological Resource''' earlier, where:
* The ''TDC'' element is populated with the domain "Dishwashing Detergent".
* ''Facet_i'' elements are populated with the facets: "Agent", "Form", "Brand Name", "Scent", "Effect On Agent", and "Special Property".
* ''F_iTerm_j'' elements are populated with the terms or foci listed below (grouped by facet):
** Agent: dishwasher, person.
** Form: gel, gelpac, liquid, powder, tablet.
** Brand Name: Cascade, Electrasol, Ivory, No Name, Palmolive, President's Choice, Sunlight.
** Scent: green apple, green tea, lavender, lemon, mandarin, ocean breeze, orange blossom, orchard fresh, passion flower, ruby red grapefruit, ylang ylang.
** Effect on Agent: aroma therapy (subdivisions: invigorating, relaxing).
** Special Property: antibacterial.
* ''Item_x'' elements are populated in this case with two example items to classify:
** "President's Choice Antibacterial Hand Soap and Dishwashing Liquid".
** "Palmolive Aroma Therapy, Lavender and Ylang Ylang".
|Graphical Representation=Denton_-_2003_-_FCS_Dishwashing_Detergent.jpg
|Web Reference=http://www.miskatonic.org/library/facet-web-howto.html
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Ontology Example Template
|Description=OWL representation of the "Dishwashing Detergent" domain concept Faceted Classification Scheme applying the Normalization ODP.

The symbol (≡) denotes an OWL defined class.

[[Image:FacetedClassificationSchemeOntoExObjProp.png]]
|Graphical Representation=FacetedClassificationStructureOntologyExample.png
|Web Reference=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1666716/Attachments/detergent_fcs_normalisation_prot3x_owl.owl
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Process Example Template
|Description=Using the mappings from the table.
|Graphical Representation=MappingFCSNormalizationODP.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Additional Information Template
|SubmittedBy=BenedictoRodriguezCastro,
|Author=BenedictoRodriguezCastro, HughGlaser, LesCarr
|Related to=Submissions:Normalization, Submissions:Partition, Submissions:ClassAsPropertyValue
}}
{{Additional information header}}

{{Scenarios about me}}
{{Reviews about me}}
{{Modeling issues about me}}
{{My references}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP:2010
}}

Community:Multiple Alternative Classification Criteria

2010-09-06T01:46:31Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{TitleDescription Template
|Title=Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS)
|Description=This modeling issue refers to the conceptualization of a specific domain concept using a Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).

A FCS is defined as: "a set of mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive categories, each made by isolating one perspective on the items (a facet), that combine to completely describe all the objects in question, and which users can use, by searching and browsing, to find what they need" [http://www.miskatonic.org/library/facet-web-howto.html (Denton, 2003)].

The section '''Diagram''' below presents an example of a FCS in the domain of "Dishwashing Detergent" from [http://www.miskatonic.org/library/facet-web-howto.html (Denton, 2003)].
}}
{{Graphical representation
|ImageName=Denton - 2003 - FCS Dishwashing Detergent.jpg
}}
{{Modeling Issue Template
|Author=BenedictoRodriguezCastro, HughGlaser, LesCarr
|Domain=General, Vocabulary,
|CompetencyQuestion=Allow me to retrieve all "elements" (classes/individuals) of a "domain concept" viewed by a combination of "values" (or "terms") from various "classification criteria" (or "facets").
|Scenario=Retrieve all "dishwashing detergents" whose "Brand" is "Palmolive" and whose "Scent" is "lemon".
|ProposedSolution=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1666716/Attachments/detergent_fcs_normalisation_prot3x_owl.owl
|RelatedPattern=Partition, Normalization
}}
{{Additional information header}}
A more detailed explanation of this modeling issue and the rationale of one proposed solution is presented in the paper: [http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21488/ How to ''Reuse'' a Faceted Classification and Put It on the ''Semantic'' Web].

The OWL file in section '''Proposed Solutions''' provides an OWL DL implementation of
the example FCS in section '''Diagram''' applying the Normalization ODP as outlined in the paper mentioned.
{{My references}}
{{Modeling Issue toolbar}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP:2010
}}

Community:Multiple Alternative Classification Criteria

2010-09-06T01:45:57Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{TitleDescription Template
|Title=Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS)
|Description=This modeling issue refers to the conceptualization of a specific domain concept using a Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).

A FCS is defined as: "a set of mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive categories, each made by isolating one perspective on the items (a facet), that combine to completely describe all the objects in question, and which users can use, by searching and browsing, to find what they need" [http://www.miskatonic.org/library/facet-web-howto.html (Denton, 2003)].

The section '''Diagram''' below presents an example of a FCS in the domain of "Dishwashing Detergent" from [http://www.miskatonic.org/library/facet-web-howto.html (Denton, 2003)].
}}
{{Graphical representation
|ImageName=Denton - 2003 - FCS Dishwashing Detergent.jpg
}}
{{Modeling Issue Template
|Author=BenedictoRodriguezCastro, HughGlaser, LesCarr
|Domain=General, Vocabulary,
|CompetencyQuestion=Allow me to retrieve all "elements" (classes/individuals) of a "domain concept" viewed by a combination of values from various "classification criteria" (or "facets").
|Scenario=Retrieve all "dishwashing detergents" whose "Brand" is "Palmolive" and whose "Scent" is "lemon".
|ProposedSolution=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1666716/Attachments/detergent_fcs_normalisation_prot3x_owl.owl
|RelatedPattern=Partition, Normalization
}}
{{Additional information header}}
A more detailed explanation of this modeling issue and the rationale of one proposed solution is presented in the paper: [http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21488/ How to ''Reuse'' a Faceted Classification and Put It on the ''Semantic'' Web].

The OWL file in section '''Proposed Solutions''' provides an OWL DL implementation of
the example FCS in section '''Diagram''' applying the Normalization ODP as outlined in the paper mentioned.
{{My references}}
{{Modeling Issue toolbar}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP:2010
}}

Submissions:Faceted Classification Scheme

2010-09-06T01:42:06Z

BenedictoRodriguezCastro:

{{Reengineering_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal General Information Template
|Name=Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS)
|Problem=Ontological representation of a specific domain concept conceptualized using a Faceted Classification Scheme (FCS).
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal NOR Template
|Description=A FCS is defined as: "a set of mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive categories, each made by isolating one perspective on the items (a facet), that combine to completely describe all the objects in question, and which users can use, by searching and browsing, to find what they need" [http://www.miskatonic.org/library/facet-web-howto.html (Denton, 2003)].

The following notation is introduced to refer to the elements of a generic FCS in the figure below:
* ''Target Domain Concept'' (''TDC'') denotes the domain of discourse. The domain-specific concept targeted by the FCS.
* ''Facet_i'' denotes one of the facets of the FCS.
* ''F_iTerm_j'' denotes one of the terms of ''Facet_i''.
* ''Item_x'' denotes one the items from the domain of discourse (''TDC'') to be classified.
|Graphical Representation=FacetedClassificationScheme_GenericStructure.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Ontology Template
|Description=Generic structure of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP used to represent a Faceted Classification Scheme.

The symbol (≡) denotes an OWL defined class.

[[Image:NormalizationGenericStructure1.png|center|Generic structure of the Normalization ODP used to represent a FCS.]]

The figure below represents a further generalization of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP and introduces the following notation:
* '':TDC'' denotes a primitive class representing the domain concept being normalized.
* '':Module_i'' denotes a primitive class that represents one of the modules.
* '':M_iClass_j'' denotes a primitive class that represents a subset of the module class '':Module_i''.
* '':hasModule_i'' denotes an object property that links every module '':Module_i'' to the different subclasses of the target domain concept '':M_iClass_jTDC'' and '':SpecificTDC_x''.
* '':M_iClass_jTDC'' denotes a defined class that represents a subset of the target domain concept class '':TDC''. Every class '':M_iClass_jTDC'' is defined based on its relationship to the single corresponding class '':M_iClass_j'' that it is derived from.
* '':SpecificTDC_x'' denotes a primitive class that represents a subset of the target domain concept class '':TDC'' and an entity from the domain to be classified. Every class '':SpecificTDC_x'' is described based on its relationship to various classes '':M_iClass_j'' from potentially different modules. As a consequence of this relationship, the classes '':SpecificTDC_x'' could introduce the polyhierarchy scenarios in the ontology model that the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP aims to manage and untangle.
|Graphical Representation=NormalizationGenericStructure2.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Process Template
|Description=Mapping between the elements in the generic structure of a Faceted Classification Scheme and the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP.

The table below summarizes the alignment of the elements in the generic structure of both conceptual models. This alignment enables the conversion from a FCS to an OWL DL ontology by applying the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP:
* The first column (leftmost), contains the elements of a generic FCS as introduced in section '''Non-Ontological Resource''' above.
* The second column contains the elements of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP generic structure
as introduced in section '''Ontology''' above.
* The third column represents the selected OWL notation for the elements of a generic FCS in the context of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP generic structure.
* The forth column (rightmost), indicates the OWL implementation chosen for every element. The selection complies with the requirements of the normalization mechanism.

[[Image:MappingFCSNormalizationODP.png|center]]

Based on the principle of representating each facet of a FCS as a module of the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP, the underlying ideas behind the mappings in the figure(table) above can be outlined as follows:
* The target domain concept ''TDC'' represents the domain of discourse of both a FCS and the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP. The primitive class '':TDC'' fulfills that role in the normalized ontology.
* A facet ''Facet_i'' from a generic FCS corresponds to a module '':Module_i'' in the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP, therefore it becomes a primitive class '':Facet_i'' in the normalized ontology model.
* A facet ''Facet_i'' from a FCS also becomes an object property '':hasFacet_i'' in the normalized ontology, given that for every module '':Module_i'' in the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP, there is an object property '':has_Module_i''.
* From the relationship between facet and module, it follows that a facet term ''F_iTerm_j'' from a FCS maps to a module subclass '':M_iClass_j'' from the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP. Both elements represents the same notion in their respective conceptual models. A subvidision, a refinement of the facet or module that they complement respectively. Therefore, a facet term ''F_iTerm_j'' from a FCS becomes a primitive class '':F_iTerm_j'' in the normalized ontology.
* A facet term ''F_iTerm_j'' from a FCS also produces a defined class '':F_iTerm_jTDC'' in the normalized ontology, given that for every primitive class '':M_iClass_j'' in the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP, there is a corresponding defined class '':M_iClass_jTDC''.
* Every item ''Item_x'' to be classified in the FCS aligns to a class '':Specific_x'' that is automatically classified by a reasoner in the [[Submissions:Normalization|Normalization]] ODP. Therefore, every element ''Item_x'' is represented as a primitive class '':SpecificTDC_x'' in the normalized ontology.

|Graphical Representation=FacetedClassificationSchemeGenericStructure.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Scenario Example Template
|Description=To create an ontology model to represent an existing Faceted Classification Scheme for a specific domain concept.
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal NOR Example Template
|Description=The figure below recaps the final FCS developed for the "Dishwashing Detergent" domain example in [http://www.miskatonic.org/library/facet-web-howto.html (Denton, 2003)](§ 2.4). The elements of the schema fit into the generic structure of a FCS presented in section '''Non-Ontological Resource''' earlier, where:
* The ''TDC'' element is populated with the domain "Dishwashing Detergent".
* ''Facet_i'' elements are populated with the facets: "Agent", "Form", "Brand Name", "Scent", "Effect On Agent", and "Special Property".
* ''F_iTerm_j'' elements are populated with the terms or foci listed below (grouped by facet):
** Agent: dishwasher, person.
** Form: gel, gelpac, liquid, powder, tablet.
** Brand Name: Cascade, Electrasol, Ivory, No Name, Palmolive, President's Choice, Sunlight.
** Scent: green apple, green tea, lavender, lemon, mandarin, ocean breeze, orange blossom, orchard fresh, passion flower, ruby red grapefruit, ylang ylang.
** Effect on Agent: aroma therapy (subdivisions: invigorating, relaxing).
** Special Property: antibacterial.
* ''Item_x'' elements are populated in this case with two example items to classify:
** "President's Choice Antibacterial Hand Soap and Dishwashing Liquid".
** "Palmolive Aroma Therapy, Lavender and Ylang Ylang".
|Graphical Representation=Denton_-_2003_-_FCS_Dishwashing_Detergent.jpg
|Web Reference=http://www.miskatonic.org/library/facet-web-howto.html
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Ontology Example Template
|Description=OWL representation of the "Dishwashing Detergent" domain concept Faceted Classification Scheme applying the Normalization ODP.

The symbol (≡) denotes an OWL defined class.

[[Image:FacetedClassificationSchemeOntoExObjProp.png]]
|Graphical Representation=FacetedClassificationStructureOntologyExample.png
|Web Reference=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1666716/Attachments/detergent_fcs_normalisation_prot3x_owl.owl
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Process Example Template
|Description=Using the mappings from the table.
|Graphical Representation=MappingFCSNormalizationODP.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Additional Information Template
|SubmittedBy=BenedictoRodriguezCastro,
|Author=BenedictoRodriguezCastro, HughGlaser, LesCarr
|Related to=Submissions:Normalization, Submissions:Partition, Submissions:ClassAsPropertyValue
}}
{{Additional information header}}

{{Scenarios about me}}
{{Reviews about me}}
{{Modeling issues about me}}
{{My references}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP:2010
}}