'Ontology Design Patterns' - User contributions [en]

Submissions:Xsd:sequence embedding

2009-09-08T13:02:03Z

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

{{Reengineering_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal General Information Template
|Name=Structural XML/DTD embedding to ontological meronymy
|Problem=This pattern addresses the re-engineering of certain embedded structures within XSD and DTD representations into a meronymic pattern.
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal NOR Template
|Description=*For a description of XSD see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML_Schema_(W3C)
The pattern covers the cases where an xsd:element is embedded into an xsd:sequence, which is in its turn embedded by an xsd:element.
*The graphical representation only illustrates the XSD case.
*The DTD case is described in the example section.
|Graphical Representation=1.JPG
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Ontology Template
|Description=The ontology comprising the pattern representing the relevant XSD or DTD fragment.
|Graphical Representation=Xsd-embedding2.JPG
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Process Template
|Description=The re-engineering process involves a number of steps:
*The creation of embedding class and embedded class(es)
*The creation of an instance of the hasPart object property from the DOLCE Ultra Light ontology (http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl) with embedding class as domain and embedded class(es) as range.
|Graphical Representation=Xsd-step3.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Scenario Example Template
|Description=The application scenario is in the area of the modelling of lexical translational equivalence according to the format of the XLIFF and TMX standards for translation memory.
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal NOR Example Template
|Description=XLIFF
The purpose of the OASIS XLIFF standard (http://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/v1.2/os/xliff-core.html) is to define and promote, through extensible XML vocabularies, the adoption of a specification for the interchange of localizable software and document based objects and related metadata.
XLIFF should be able to mark-up and capture localization information and interoperate with different processes and phases without loss of information. It should fulfill specific requirements of being tool-neutral. It should support the localization related aspects of internationalization and entire localization process. It also needs to support common software and content data formats. This should also provide an extensibility mechanism to allow the development of tools compatible with an implementer’s proprietary data formats and workflow requirements.

*1. TransUnit: contains (a set of) translational equivalences
*2. Source: the source of the translation pair
*3. SegSource: the translatable text, divided into segments
*4. Mrk: Each segment is marked by means of the <Mrk> element with attribute “mType” set to the value "seg".
*5. Target: the target of the translation pair
*6. Alt-Trans: possible translations as Target instances
*7. Equiv-trans: Indicates if the target language translation is a direct equivalent of the source text.

DTD embedding is exemplified (but not illustrated on this page) by Translation Memory eXchange standard (TMX) (http://www.lisa.org/Translation-Memory-e.34.0.html). TMX is the vendor-neutral open XML standard for the exchange of Translation Memory data created by Computer Aided Translation and localization tools. The purpose of TMX is to allow easier exchange of translation memory data between tools and/or translation vendors with little or no loss of critical data during the process. In existence since 1998, TMX is a certifiable standard format. TMX is developed and maintained by OSCAR (Open Standards for Container/Content Allowing Re-use), a LISA (Localization Industry Standards Association) Special Interest Group.
The following structure from TMX illustrates the same pattern conversion

<!ELEMENT tu (tuv+) >
This describes that a translation unit (tu) consists of one or more translation unit variants (tuv).
A translationUnit contains the data for a given translation unit.
A TranslationUnitVariant specifies text in a given language.
A more detailed description of TMX can be found in NeOn deliverable D2.4.3: Multilingual and Localization Support for Ontologies (www.neon-project.org).
|Graphical Representation=xsd-step4.png
|Web Reference=http://schemas.liquid-technologies.com/Oasis/XLIFF/1.2/default.html?url=http://schemas.liquid-technologies.com/Oasis/XLIFF/1.2/xliff-core-1_2-strict_xsd.html
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Ontology Example Template
|Description=The xsd:sequence embedding pattern as the resulting ontology pattern.
|Graphical Representation=xsd-step5.JPG
|Web Reference=http://gate.ac.uk/gate-extras/neon/ontologies/xsd-embedding.owl
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Process Example Template
|Description=The ontological pattern re-engineered from the XLIFF fragment.
|Graphical Representation=Xsd-embedding-6.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Additional Information Template
|SubmittedBy=Wim Peters
|Author=Wim Peters
}}

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

[[Category:Review assigned]]

Reviews:MathieuDAquin about Xsd:sequence embedding

2009-09-08T13:02:02Z

MathieuDAquin: New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2009/9/8 |SubmittedBy=MathieuDAquin |ContentOPUnderReview=Xsd:sequence embedding |RevisionID=5628 |Score=0 - needs major revision |Revie...

{{Content OP Proposal Review Template
|CreationDate=2009/9/8
|SubmittedBy=MathieuDAquin
|ContentOPUnderReview=Xsd:sequence embedding
|RevisionID=5628
|Score=0 - needs major revision
|ReviewSummary=I don't really understand this pattern.
It seems to be representing the notion of sequence of objects, but focusing on the relation between the representation of sequence in XSD and the one in ontologies.
My impression is that this pattern is more generic and that the link with XSD is only one possible usage of it.
|ReviewConfidence=As I said, I don't understand it.
|ReviewProblems=I don't see what format level consideration should be included in design pattern definition.
Also, the ontology representation is not clear.. is it only a partOf pattern. The notion of sequence does not appear.
|ReviewRelevance=I guess it is relevant in the proposed scenario.
|ReviewReusability=Limited I believe.
|ReviewRelations=PartOf
|ReviewUnderstandability=There is a lot of description, but it doesn't help a lot in understanding how the pattern can be used.
}}

Submissions:DisjointnessOfComplement (DOC)

2009-09-08T12:50:56Z

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

{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Include Image}}
{{Logical OP General Template
|Name=DisjointnessOfComplement (DOC)
|SubmittedBy=CatherineRoussey, OscarCorcho,
}}
{{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.
|Aim=The ontology developer may want to say that C1 and C2 cannot share instances, instead of defining C1 as the logical negation of C2. Hence it could be more appropriate to state that C1 and C2 are disjoint.
|Solution=C1 isEquivalentTo not C2
should be replace by
C1 disjointWith C2
}}
{{Logical OP Example Template
|ProblemExample=Salt_Lagoon isEquivalentTo not Fresh_Waters
see concept Laguna_Salada 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
}}

Reviews:MathieuDAquin about DisjointnessOfComplement (DOC)

2009-09-08T12:50:55Z

MathieuDAquin: New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2009/9/8 |SubmittedBy=MathieuDAquin |ContentOPUnderReview=DisjointnessOfComplement (DOC) |RevisionID=5716 |Score=0 - needs major revisio...

{{Content OP Proposal Review Template
|CreationDate=2009/9/8
|SubmittedBy=MathieuDAquin
|ContentOPUnderReview=DisjointnessOfComplement (DOC)
|RevisionID=5716
|Score=0 - needs major revision
|ReviewSummary=I am not really sure what to do here.
What is proposed is an anti-pattern: a pattern which is sometimes used improperly and should, in these cases, be replaced by another. As far as I can tell, the portal is not intended to be used for such patterns.
in addition, many elements are missing.
It could be interesting to discuss anti-pattern and whether the proposed ones are good, what should be the description of such patterns, etc.
|ReviewConfidence=OK
|ReviewProblems=This does not fit the usual design patterns which are meant to be reused, but correspond to a pattern that should not be reused in cases where it is does not express the intended meaning.

In addition, I am not actually convinced with the relation between the anti-pattern and the solution. The one to use is depends on what need to be expressed and I am not convinced that the one proposed corresponds to the one most often wrongly applied.
|ReviewRelevance=As an anti-pattern, maybe.
|ReviewReusability=The anti-pattern itself should not be reused. Sometimes the solution (replacement) should not be used either.
|ReviewUnderstandability=OK, except that most of the necessary is missing.
|ReviewClearRelevance=Not really, as it is not explained how to detect where this anti-pattern applies (when it is used incorrectly). Not appropriate explanation of the consequences of using this one instead of the solution (can be easily understood for users familiar with DLs, but probably not by others).
|ReviewFigures=No.
|ReviewMissing=It is not clear where this pattern comes from, what makes the authors think it is common, etc. See also "Clear Relevance and Consequences"
}}

Submissions:ConceptGroup

2009-09-08T12:34:03Z

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

{{Content_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Include Image
|ImageName=ConceptGroupPattern.jpg
}}
{{Content OP Proposal Template
|SubmittedBy=Pierre-YvesVandenbussche
|Name=ConceptGroup
|Intent=This CP allows designers to represent concept group defined by intention (all concepts satisfying group membership condition) or by extension (all concepts referring a group).
|Domain=Parts and Collections, Vocabulary,
|ContentODPDescription=How a group entity stands alone?, How to represent either a vocabulary subset, a cross vocabulary subset or a whole vocabulary?, How to represent group concept members?
|ReusableOWLBuildingBlock=http://sites.google.com/site/pierreyvesvandenbussche/resources/ConceptGroup.owl
|Scenario=Used to describe whole vocabulary entity or vocabulary concepts subset. Compliant with RefSets in SNOMED-CT or themes in GEMET.
|ReengineeredFrom=SNOMED-CT Reference Sets specification: http://www.ihtsdo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Docs_01/Technical_Docs/reference_sets.pdf
}}
{{Element list header}}

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

[[Category:Review assigned]]

Reviews:MathieuDAquin about ConceptGroup

2009-09-08T12:34:02Z

MathieuDAquin: New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2009/9/8 |SubmittedBy=MathieuDAquin |ContentOPUnderReview=ConceptGroup |RevisionID=5660 |Score=0 - needs major revision |ReviewSummary=T...

{{Content OP Proposal Review Template
|CreationDate=2009/9/8
|SubmittedBy=MathieuDAquin
|ContentOPUnderReview=ConceptGroup
|RevisionID=5660
|Score=0 - needs major revision
|ReviewSummary=This pattern, as far as I understand, to represents groups of concepts.
I think the pattern would be interesting to discuss, but suffer from a number of problems as detailed below.
|ReviewConfidence=I am not really clear about this particular pattern.
|ReviewProblems=The general issues I see here concern clarity and possible usage.
The first thing is that I am not sure what is meant by concept here. Does it corresponds to the concept of an ontology? In this case shouldn't it be related to owl:Class in the OWL description? This would cause a number of issues at the logical level, in particular, if Group is a concept. This needs to be made clear in my opinion.

Also, Group should be called ConceptGroup.

I don't really understand the difference between subgroup and narrowerThan. Isn't a subgroup narrower?

Finally, I don't see a clear application for this pattern as is.
|ReviewRelevance=Not clear to me.
|ReviewBestPractice=The current form of the pattern doesn't seem to relate with best practices, and at least in naming, is not really appropriate.
|ReviewReusability=Unclear.
|ReviewRelations=PartOf pattern applied to concepts?
|ReviewUnderstandability=Low
|ReviewClearProblem=Not really. I don't in which scenario this helps.
|ReviewClearRelevance=Not really.
|ReviewFigures=OK.
|ReviewMissing=example of usage, clear description/definition of the entities.
}}

User:MathieuDAquin

2008-06-26T09:20:28Z

MathieuDAquin:

{{User Template
|FirstName=Mathieu
|LastName=DAquin
|Genre=Male
|Picture=ODPUser.png
|HomePage=http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/mathieu/
|Organization=KMI
|OrganizationType=Educational Training and Research Institution
|OrganizationWebSite=http://kmi.open.ac.uk
|Country=United Kingdom United Kingdom (GB)
|Role=Researcher
}}
{{Account Request Template
|Motivation=To find patterns to reuse for ontologies and to check best practices
|PossibleMainContribution=To have some help to solve modeling problems, To help other users to solve modeling problems
|DomainsOfInterest=Community:Academy, Community:General, Community:Healthcare, Community:Ontology, Community:Semiotics, Community:Time, Community:University
|HowDidIKnowAbout=colleagues
}}