Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [sw-ubicomp-interest] PERVASIVE-SO & Guide

Expand Messages
  • Danny Ayers
    Hi Harry, I ve only had chance for a quick skim of the material but it looks good & interesting. A couple of points stood out right away - there is
    Message 1 of 5 , Jan 31, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Harry,

      I've only had chance for a quick skim of the material but it looks good &
      interesting. A couple of points stood out right away - there is considerable
      overlap with existing vocabularies, so I'd expect to see OWL equivalence
      statements in the new terms (I'm assuming a design decision was to bundle
      the terms together into a new ontology rather than reusing existing
      vocabularies directly). Additionally, it would be very helpful to see a
      demonstration of how the equivalence could be used in practice - e.g. take a
      per:Person and a foaf:Person and using one of the inference engines
      determine that they are the same person.

      The other point is the definition of a person seems to very similar to
      foaf:Person, but without taking into account some of the problems that have
      already been addressed there. In particular the identification of a person
      by a URI - their homepage or mailbox - falls short of what's required on
      both practical and conceptual levels. A person may change/lose either of
      these, and a person's homepage or mailbox is not the person, it's a
      different resource. Statements you make about one (like dc:creator) don't
      necessarily apply to the other. I'd suggest using the FOAF approach of the
      person as a bnode, with their identifying features as properties.

      Anyhow it's great to see that you've got something down from which to work.
      I'm looking forward to seeing how this develops.

      Cheers,
      Danny.
    • Rodrigo Prestes Machado
      What I like to hear from you: 1) Do you think the defined ontologies are interesting? Are we heading towards the right direction? I think that ontologies are
      Message 2 of 5 , Jan 31, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        What I like to hear from you:

        1) Do you think the defined ontologies are interesting? Are we heading
        towards the right direction?

        I think that ontologies are very interesting but, I have to agree
        with Danny message about “overlap with existing vocabularies”. I think that
        we can reuse a lot of standard ontology to make a nice pervasive ontology


        2) Do you think the "ontology guide" document is useful? Should any
        other materials be included in the documentation?

        Yes, documents are very import

        Rodrigo

        #Rodrigo Prestes Machado
        #PUC-Rio/Brazil

        ---------- Original Message -----------
        From: Harry Chen <harry.chen@...>
        To: sw-ubicomp-interest@yahoogroups.com, daml-umbc@...
        Sent: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:42:31 -0500
        Subject: [sw-ubicomp-interest] PERVASIVE-SO & Guide

        > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
        > Hash: SHA1
        >
        > Greetings,
        >
        > I uploaded a draft version of the PERVASIVE-SO ontology. This is an
        > experimental version of the ontology, and therefore it does not
        > contain everything that is promised in the proposal. :-)
        >
        > I also wrote a document that describes how you can use this ontology
        > to describe user profiles and preferences. Note that this document
        > only covers a subset of the ontologies that are defined in PERVASIVE-
        > SO.
        >
        > http://pervasive.semanticweb.org/
        >
        > What I like to hear from you:
        >
        > 1) Do you think the defined ontologies are interesting? Are we
        > heading towards the right direction?
        >
        > 2) Do you think the "ontology guide" document is useful? Should any
        > other materials be included in the documentation?
        >
        > 3) other comments & suggestions...
        >
        > - - Harry
        >
        > - --
        > Harry Chen <> eBiquity Research Group <> Dept. of CSEE UMBC
        > mailto:harry.chen@... <> http://umbc.edu/people/hchen4
        > <> 8303 775C F587 8F91 673B 000A C396 A7F5 C12B D936 <>
        > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
        > Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (Darwin)
        >
        > iD8DBQFAGyQww5an9cEr2TYRAoVXAJsFzv4ByACGOjCgBP9glsSGD1LTAgCglaJv
        > ekUqzwgHHM35ESMAXB8qGig=
        > =xOpy
        > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        > To visit your group on the web, go to:
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sw-ubicomp-interest/
        >
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > sw-ubicomp-interest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
        > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        ------- End of Original Message -------
      • Harry Chen
        ... Hash: SHA1 ... This is interesting. I will consider this approach when I update the ontology. - - Harry - -- Harry Chen eBiquity Research Group Dept.
        Message 3 of 5 , Jan 31, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
          Hash: SHA1

          On Jan 31, 2004, at 6:26 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:

          > The other point is the definition of a person seems to very similar to
          > foaf:Person, but without taking into account some of the problems that
          > have
          > already been addressed there. In particular the identification of a
          > person
          > by a URI - their homepage or mailbox - falls short of what's required
          > on
          > both practical and conceptual levels. A person may change/lose either
          > of
          > these, and a person's homepage or mailbox is not the person, it's a
          > different resource. Statements you make about one (like dc:creator)
          > don't
          > necessarily apply to the other. I'd suggest using the FOAF approach of
          > the
          > person as a bnode, with their identifying features as properties.

          This is interesting. I will consider this approach when I update the
          ontology.

          - - Harry

          - --
          Harry Chen <> eBiquity Research Group <> Dept. of CSEE UMBC
          mailto:harry.chen@... <> http://umbc.edu/people/hchen4
          <> 8303 775C F587 8F91 673B 000A C396 A7F5 C12B D936 <>
          -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
          Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (Darwin)

          iD8DBQFAG/yuw5an9cEr2TYRApkNAKCHI5c2dl6oDHs38R8GGURdNOHOYgCfYW5Z
          2oE1w1KQ8Lm3PsQXOo3DVSo=
          =dqPe
          -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
        • gutao
          Hi, I think that the Pervasive-SO ontology is very interesting. Such a set of standardized ontologies is useful for people working on this area. I agree with
          Message 4 of 5 , Feb 3 7:25 PM
          • 0 Attachment

            Hi,

             

            I think that the Pervasive-SO ontology is very interesting. Such a set of standardized ontologies is useful for people working on this area.   

            I agree with Danny’s opinions. We can actually use some standard ontologies which are well defined.

             

            Further more, I am more concerning about the overall structure of the Pervasive-SO ontology. We can nicely define all pieces of ontologies, but how to link up them together. I would suggest a two-layer approach in which we can define top level concepts in the upper layer and define all detailed concepts in the lower layer in a domain specific fashion. And I think this is an important issue here and should have an open discussion.

             

            Rdgs

            Tao Gu  

             

             

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Harry Chen [mailto:harry.chen@...]
            Sent:
            Saturday, January 31, 2004 11:43 AM
            To: sw-ubicomp-interest@yahoogroups.com; daml-umbc@...
            Subject: [sw-ubicomp-interest] PERVASIVE-SO & Guide

             

            -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
            Hash: SHA1

            Greetings,

            I uploaded a draft version of the PERVASIVE-SO ontology. This is an
            experimental version of the ontology, and therefore it does not contain
            everything that is promised in the proposal. :-)

            I also wrote a document that describes how you can use this ontology to
            describe user profiles and preferences. Note that this document only
            covers a subset of the ontologies that are defined in PERVASIVE-SO.

            http://pervasive.semanticweb.org/

            What I like to hear from you:

            1) Do you think the defined ontologies are interesting? Are we heading
            towards the right direction?

            2) Do you think the "ontology guide" document is useful? Should any
            other materials be included in the documentation?

            3) other comments & suggestions...

            - - Harry

            - --
            Harry Chen <> eBiquity Research Group <> Dept. of CSEE UMBC
            mailto:harry.chen@... <> http://umbc.edu/people/hchen4
            <>  8303 775C F587 8F91 673B  000A C396 A7F5 C12B D936   <>
            -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
            Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (Darwin)

            iD8DBQFAGyQww5an9cEr2TYRAoVXAJsFzv4ByACGOjCgBP9glsSGD1LTAgCglaJv
            ekUqzwgHHM35ESMAXB8qGig=
            =xOpy
            -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




            Yahoo! Groups Links

            ·         To visit your group on the web, go to:
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sw-ubicomp-interest/
             

            ·         To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            sw-ubicomp-interest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
             

            ·         Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.