'Ontology Design Patterns' - User contributions [en]

2009-09-08T11:01:32Z

MartaSabou: New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2009/9/8 |SubmittedBy=MartaSabou |ContentOPUnderReview=Term-based thesaurus to lightweight ontology – record-based model |RevisionID=5...

{{Content OP Proposal Review Template
|CreationDate=2009/9/8
|SubmittedBy=MartaSabou
|ContentOPUnderReview=Term-based thesaurus to lightweight ontology – record-based model
|RevisionID=5703
|Score=1 - needs minor revision
|ReviewSummary=This pattern describes the process of transforming a thesaurus type structure into an ontology and as such it has a considerable industrial impact.

The pattern is clearly and extensively described and exemplified. Also, I think it will lead to interesting discussions during WOP, therefore my overall rating of 1.

In the "ontology example" diagram, "learning" is both a subclass and a superclass of "competence" - based on the ETT example, skill <= competence.
|ReviewConfidence=Medium.
|ReviewProblems=Minor error in a graphical representation.
|ReviewRelevance=High.
|ReviewReusability=High.
|ReviewUnderstandability=Good.
|ReviewClearProblem=Yes.
|ReviewFigures=Yes.
}}

Submissions:SynonymOrEquivalence (SOE)

2009-09-08T10:46:31Z

MartaSabou: Review has been created. Annotation 'assigned' has been removed. Annotation 'waiting' has been removed.

{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Include Image
|ImageName=[[Image:AntipatternSOE.jpg]]
}}
{{Logical OP General Template
|Name=SynonymOrEquivalence (SOE)
|SubmittedBy=Catherine Roussey, Oscar Corcho
}}
{{Logical OP Description Template
|Motivation=We have identified a set of patterns that are commonly used by domain experts in their DL formalisations and OWL implementations, and that normally result in unsatisfiable classes or modelling errors. As aforementioned all these antipatterns come from a misuse and misunderstanding of DL expressions by ontology developers. Thus they are all Logical AntiPatterns (LAP): they are independent from a specific domain of interest, but dependent on the expressivity of the logical formalism used for the representation. We have categorized them into three groups:
|Aim=The ontology developer wants to express that two classes C1 and C2 are identical. This is not very useful in a single ontology that does not import others. Indeed, what the ontology developer generally wants to represent is a terminological synonymy relation: the class C1 has two labels: C1 and C2. Usually one of the classes is not used anywhere else in the axioms defined in the ontology.
|Solution=C1 isEquivalentTo C2
The proposal for avoiding this antipattern is the following (if C2 is the less used term in the ontology) add all the comments and labels of C2 into C1 and remove C2
}}
{{Logical OP Example Template
|ProblemExample=Subterranean_Watercourses isEquivalentTo Subterranean_Rivers
see Corriente_Subterranea concept in Hydrontology
|SolutionExample=http://www.dia.fi.upm.es/~ocorcho/OWLDebugging/
}}
{{Logical OP Reference Template}}

{{Scenarios about me}}
{{Reviews about me}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP2009:Main
}}

[[Category:Review assigned]]

Reviews:MartaSabou about SynonymOrEquivalence (SOE)

2009-09-08T10:46:30Z

MartaSabou: New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2009/9/8 |SubmittedBy=MartaSabou |ContentOPUnderReview=SynonymOrEquivalence (SOE) |RevisionID=5617 |Score=0 - needs major revision |Revi...

{{Content OP Proposal Review Template
|CreationDate=2009/9/8
|SubmittedBy=MartaSabou
|ContentOPUnderReview=SynonymOrEquivalence (SOE)
|RevisionID=5617
|Score=0 - needs major revision
|ReviewSummary=This is a simple but useful solution to an antipattern - the tendency to declare two classes equivalent when in fact their labels simply express synonym.

The pattern and the solution are quite simple, and as a result I do not expect this pattern to lead to lengthy and interesting discussions during the WOP workshop. Additionally, the pattern requires further documentation and more clear solutions (currently the solution link points to a whole directory and it is a rather tedious task to dig up the appropriate solution example) - these two facts forced me to lower my score to 0.
|ReviewConfidence=Medium.
|ReviewBestPractice=Good.
|ReviewReusability=High.
|ReviewRelations=Not known but could be further investigated.
|ReviewUnderstandability=Good.
|ReviewClearProblem=Yes.
|ReviewFigures=None provided.
}}

Submissions:Partition

2009-09-08T10:35:04Z

MartaSabou: Review has been created. Annotation 'assigned' has been removed.

{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Include Image}}
{{Logical OP General Template
|Name=Partition
|SubmittedBy=OlafNoppens
}}
{{Logical OP Description Template
|Motivation=This is a logical pattern to define a partition. It is independant of a specific domain. Partitions are a common modeling structure.
|Aim=The ontology engineer may say that a class is a partition over other classes (including class expressions). A partition is a structure dividing its content into several parts.
|Solution=We introduce two axioms where Partition is the Partition class and B1,...,Bn are arbitrary class expressions (n >= 2) (expressed in OWL 2 Abstract Syntax)

''EquivalentClasses(Partition, ObjectUnionOf(B1, ..., Bn))''

''DisjointClasses(B1, ..., Bn)''
}}
{{Logical OP Example Template
|SolutionExample=http://www.informatik.uni-ulm.de/ki/Noppens/owl/patterns/partition.owl
}}
{{Logical OP Reference Template}}

{{Scenarios about me}}
{{Reviews about me}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP2009:Main
}}

Reviews:MartaSabou about Partition

2009-09-08T10:35:03Z

MartaSabou: New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2009/9/8 |SubmittedBy=MartaSabou |ContentOPUnderReview=Partition |RevisionID=5679 |Score=0 - needs major revision |ReviewSummary=This is...

{{Content OP Proposal Review Template
|CreationDate=2009/9/8
|SubmittedBy=MartaSabou
|ContentOPUnderReview=Partition
|RevisionID=5679
|Score=0 - needs major revision
|ReviewSummary=This is a logical pattern that allows modeling partitions - i.e., a set of subclasses that are mutually disjoint but which jointly cover their parent class.

I agree that this is a rather frequent modeling problem, and the proposed solution is likely to be helpful to many practitioners.

Due to the fact that the proposed pattern is rather simple, it might not lead to very interesting/deep discussions during the WOP workshop, so my overall score reflects that. Additionally, the pattern could do with some further information in terms of usage scenarios and in particular its relation to other ODPs - this is such a core modeling problem I would be surprised if it was not already covered in some way by other patterns.

The proposed solution uses the OWL2 constructs. Wouldn't it be more useful to give an "abstract" (KR language independent solution) and then illustrate its implementation both in OWL and OWLs?
|ReviewConfidence=Medium. I cannot judge how this pattern relates to existing patterns.
|ReviewReusability=High.
|ReviewRelations=This should be further investigated.
|ReviewClearProblem=Yes.
|ReviewClearRelevance=Not specified.
|ReviewFigures=None provided.
}}

Feedback:On Modeling Issues

2008-05-02T09:36:18Z

MartaSabou: New page: {{TitleDescription Template |Title=How are Modeling Issues connected to ODP's? |Description=Are modeling issues connected to ODP's in any ways? Will the site maintainers try to come up wit...

{{TitleDescription Template
|Title=How are Modeling Issues connected to ODP's?
|Description=Are modeling issues connected to ODP's in any ways? Will the site maintainers try to come up with new ODP's that solve these modeling issues?

It would be nice to make the eventual connection between modeling issues and ODP's that could solve them visible.
}}
{{Feedback Template
|Author=User:MartaSabou
|Priority=Medium
|Status=To be done
}}
{{Answer Template
|Answer=No answer yet.
}}

Feedback:Improving feedback mechanism

2008-05-02T09:28:56Z

MartaSabou: New page: {{TitleDescription Template |Title=It is not clear how to submit a feedback |Description=When filling in a feedback form, there is no "Save" button. It took me some time to figure out that...

{{TitleDescription Template
|Title=It is not clear how to submit a feedback
|Description=When filling in a feedback form, there is no "Save" button. It took me some time to figure out that this is hidden in the "Add another" button, and that I need to fill in something in the answer field before I can submit the feedback. This should really be changed if you want people to send their feedbacks.
}}
{{Feedback Template
|Author=User:MartaSabou
|Priority=High
|Status=To be done
}}
{{Answer Template
|Answer=No answer yet.
}}

Feedback:Imporvements to main page

2008-05-02T09:25:36Z

MartaSabou: New page: {{TitleDescription Template |Title=Main page could be improved |Description=Currently the Main Page contains a lot of textual explanations about the user roles, the "life-cycle" of an ODP ...

{{TitleDescription Template
|Title=Main page could be improved
|Description=Currently the Main Page contains a lot of textual explanations about the user roles, the "life-cycle" of an ODP (proposed, reviewed,catalogued) as well as the process model of managing these ODP's. This is all nice but makes the page feel quite cluttered.

Would it be possible to represent this information in a nice diagram and provide the detailed textual description in a separate page?
}}
{{Feedback Template
|Author=User:MartaSabou
|Priority=Low
|Status=dealing with
}}
{{Answer Template
|Answer=no answer yet
}}