RE: [ld4lt] MetaShare OWL metamodel: first steps

Dear all,

I would like to support Felix's point. As one of the main actors on the
MetaShare model, I'd love to work on the editing of the ontology. However,
I'm not familiar with RDF (just starting to learn!), so an xls would be more
convenient for me.

Thanx,

Penny Labropoulou

 

From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org] 
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 8:41 AM
To: Jorge Gracia
Cc: public-ld4lt@w3.org
Subject: Re: [ld4lt] MetaShare OWL metamodel: first steps

 

Hi Jorge, all,

 

Am 23.04.2014 um 13:11 schrieb Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es
<mailto:jgracia@fi.upm.es> >:





Dear all,

 

In our first telco I took the action of starting the discussion about the
new OWL/RDF version of the MetaShare metadata model for documenting Language
Resources. For the moment I have created a space in the wiki to start
collecting information and related pointers. See
https://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt/wiki/Main_Page#OWL_Metamodel_for_Language
_Resources

 

We have to decide how to proceed for editing collaboratively the ontology in
a simple way.

 

 

One aspect of the LD4LT group is that there are many members not
knowledgable about technical details of semantic web technology. That is
good IMO since the group will be a place to learn. For the concrete topic of
metamodel, I am wondering whether editing the ontology directly will lead to
loosing these people. In other similar exercises (= mapping existing formats
using an ontology) we used a tabular representation to develop the mappings,
and the ontology was just a file edited by the technical experts. See here

 

http://www.w3.org/TR/mediaont-10/#mpeg-table

 

I am wondering whether such an approach may make sense here too?

 

About

http://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt/track/

if you want to gather issues around the ontology development, I would create
a new product here

http://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt/track/products/new

e.g. "META-SHARE metadata model“, and then for each discussion topic an
issue

http://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt/track/issues/new

e.g. for this topic “how to work on the model: ontology editing vs. tabular
mapping vs. …“

then, using the identifiers of the issues will lead to mails automatically
being gathered in the tracker system. 

 

I just did that and this for above product + issue. This mail then should be
listed under

 

https://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt/track/issues/2

 

Then, making an agenda for a call can be done via this link

https://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt/track/agenda

which shows you issues and action items.

 

Best,

 

Felix





I see three options here (feel free to propose others):

- use WebProtege (http://webprotege.stanford.edu/)

- use the ld4lt wiki

- use Github

Each one has its pros/cons. We can analyse them and take a decision in the
next telco. 


 

The starting point will be the ontology already developed at Universitat
Pompeu Fabra, which can be found at  <http://purl.org/ms-lod/MetaShare.ttl>
http://purl.org/ms-lod/MetaShare.ttl

 

@Dave: do I have to register this activity as an issue in the tracking
system?  <http://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt/track/options>
http://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt/track/options

 

Best regards,

 

-- 
Jorge Gracia, PhD
Ontology Engineering Group
Artificial Intelligence Department
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/~jgracia/