'Ontology Design Patterns' - User contributions [en]

2009-09-07T22:53:35Z

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

{{Reengineering_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal General Information Template
|Name=Term-based thesaurus to lightweight ontology – record-based model
|Problem=re-engineering a term-based thesaurus which follows the record-based
model to design a lightweight ontology.

}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal NOR Template
|Description=A non-ontological resource holds a term-based thesaurus which follows the record-based model.
A thesaurus represents the knowledge of a domain with a collection of terms and a limited set of relations between them.
The record-based data model is a denormalized structure, uses a record for every term with the information about the term, such as synonyms, broader, narrower and related terms.

|Graphical Representation=recordbasedtermbased.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Ontology Template
|Description=The generated ontology will be based on the lightweight ontology architectural pattern (AP-LW-01). Each thesaurus term is mapped to a class. A subClassOf relation is defined between the new classes for the BT/NT relation. A relatedClass relation is defined between the new classes for the RT relation. An equivalentClass relation is defined between the new classes for the UF/USE relation.
|Graphical Representation=recordbasedtermbasedOntology.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Process Template
|Description=1. Identify the records which contain thesaurus terms without a broader term.

2. For each one of the above identified thesaurus terms ti:

2.1. Create the corresponding ontology class, Ci class, if it is not created yet.

2.2. Identify the thesaurus term, tj , which are narrower terms of ti. They are referenced
in the same record which contains ti.

2.3. For each one of the above identified thesaurus term tj :

2.3.1. Create the corresponding ontology class, Cj class, if it is not created yet.

2.3.2. Set up the subClassOf relation between Cj and Ci

2.3.3. Repeat from step 2.2 for cj as a new ci

2.4. Identify the thesaurus term, tr, which are related terms of ti. They are referenced
in the same record which contains ti.

2.5. For each one of the above identified thesaurus term tr:

2.5.1. Create the corresponding ontology class, Cr class, if it is not created yet.

2.5.2. Set up the relatedClass relation between Cr and Ci

2.5.3. Repeat from step 2.4 for cr as a new ci

2.6. Identify the thesaurus term, tq, which are equivalent terms of ti. They are
referenced in the same record which contains ti.

2.7. For each one of the above identified thesaurus term tq:

2.7.1. Create the corresponding ontology class, Cq class, if it is not created yet.

2.7.2. Set up the equivalentClass relation between Cq and Ci

2.7.3. Repeat from step 2.6 for cq as a new ci.

|Graphical Representation=wfthbrblo.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Scenario Example Template
|Description=Suppose that someone wants to build a lightweight ontology based on the European Training
Thesaurus (ETT), which is a term-based thesaurus and it follows the record-based model.

}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal NOR Example Template
|Description=The European Training Thesaurus (ETT) constitutes the controlled vocabulary of reference
in the field of vocational education and training (VET) in Europe.
The relation semantics between the sub-ordinate and the super-ordinate concepts is
subClassOf.
|Graphical Representation=recordbasedtermbasedexample.png
|Web Reference=http://libserver.cedefop.europa.eu/ett/en/
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Ontology Example Template
|Description=The generated ontology will be based on the lightweight ontology architectural pattern (AP-LW-01). Each thesaurus term is mapped to a class. A subClassOf relation is defined between the new classes for the BT/NT relation. A relatedClass relation is defined between the new classes for the RT relation. An equivalentClass relation is defined between the new classes for the UF/USE relation.
|Graphical Representation=recordbasedtermbasedOntologyETT.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Process Example Template
|Description=1. Create the learning class and the personal development class.

2. Create the competence class and assert that competence is subClassOf
learning.

3. Create the performance class and assert that performance is subClassOf
development.

4. Create the achievement class and assert that achievement is equivalentClass
of performance.

5. Assert that competence is relatedClass of performance.

6. Create the learning class and assert that learning is equivalentClass of
competence.

6.1. Create the efficiency class and assert that efficiency is subClassOf
performance.

6.2. Create the failure class and assert that failure is subClassOf
performance.

6.3. Create the success class and assert that success is subClassOf
performance.

|Graphical Representation=wfthtbrbloexample.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Additional Information Template
|SubmittedBy=Boris Villazón Terrazas,
|Author=Boris Villazón Terrazas
}}

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

[[Category:Review assigned]]

2009-09-07T22:53:34Z

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

{{Content OP Proposal Review Template
|CreationDate=2009/9/8
|SubmittedBy=PierluigiMiraglia
|ContentOPUnderReview=Term-based thesaurus to lightweight ontology – record-based model
|RevisionID=5630
|Score=1 - needs minor revision
|ReviewSummary=The pattern is described clearly and exhaustively, and includes relevant examples. It addresses a common problem in transitioning enterprises and applications from legacy resources such as thesauri, terminologies, etc. to more semantically robust data structures. As such, it is worth discussing in WOP2009 events; it is hoped that additional revisions and discussion contributions will lead to a consensus approach to this general problem.

I recommend revising and/or refining the following topics (see below for fuller description):
- Use of OWL Full
- Consider SKOS
- BT/NT interpretation
- UF interpretation
- Illustrative flow charts

It may be enough, in most cases, for the author(s) or discussion participants just to clarify their position.

|ReviewConfidence=High with respect to the problem area the pattern addresses.
Medium with respect to design patterns in general.
|ReviewProblems=1: Although labelled as 'lightweight' by the author, the resulting ontology is OWL Full. Is this as intended? This is a common issue in this context and seems worth clarifying. Most people don't have in mind OWL Full when considering lightweight ontologies.

2: Would it not be more natural to transition a term-based thesaurus to a SKOS formalization, and then map skos:Concepts terms to classes (or individuals) in an ontology? This may allow flexibility in dealing with the aforementioned OWL Full problem.

3: Is it typically desirable to turn BT/NT relations into transitive sub/superclass relations? This pattern, as written, assumes it is, regardless of the context or purpose of the intended deployment. Again, the SKOS specs proceed more carefully. It may be worth to consider not only an example of applying this pattern, but also a use case -- i.e. an example of why one might want to apply it.

4: In many thesauri the UF relation is used for synonymous term strings (i.e. synonyms in a synset) rather than self standing terms. It seems that would be a simpler solution, too.

5: The graphical charts could be clearer in representing iteration over the NT terms of a term created (rather than just say 'repeat', use a cyclic graph for that part of the chart).
|ReviewRelevance=In my experience, the problem addressed looms large in the community, and is likely to remain central as more organizations adopt semantic technologies.
|ReviewBestPractice=The solution presented is fairly natural, and I would guess pretty common. However, there are alternatives, and there should be more considerations of costs v benefits in regard to the alternatives as well.
|ReviewReusability=Highly reusable, in a variety of contexts and initiatives.
|ReviewUnderstandability=Excellent
|ReviewClearProblem=The problem should be described in more practical terms, without prejudging the options. I think it would be better to formulate the problem faced by the "consumer" of the resulting resources, rather than state that the result must be a lightweight ontology.
}}

Submissions:Situation

2008-06-06T18:56:18Z

PierluigiMiraglia:

{{Content_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Include Image
|ImageName=Situation.jpg
}}
{{Content OP Proposal Template
|SubmittedBy=User:ValentinaPresutti
|Name=Situation
|Intent=To represent facts, circumstances, observed contexts.
|Domain=Community:General
|CompetencyQuestion=What entities are in the seeting of a certain situation?
|ReusableOWLBuildingBlock=http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/situation.owl
|Consequences=This CP allows the designer to model both a certain situation, and the entities that are involved. It provides designers with a vocabulary for representing n-ary relations.
|Scenario=I prepared a coffee with my heater, 300 ml of water, and an Arabica coffee mix.
|CPInstantiationExample=http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/examples/situation/coffee.owl
|ExtractedFrom=http://www.loa-cnr.it/ontologies/DUL.owl
|RelatedCP=Submissions:Description
}}
{{Element list header}}
{{Has Element Template
|HasElement=Entity
}}
{{Has Element Template
|HasElement=Situation
}}
{{Has Element Template
|HasElement=hasSetting
}}
{{Has Element Template
|HasElement=isSettingFor
}}

{{Scenarios about me}}
{{Reviews about me}}