Re: Vocabulary to describe software projects and their dependencies

[matteo casu]

Hi Martynas,

a couple of years ago, while searching for a similar use case, I came across 
this one:

https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/asset/adms_foss/description 



> On 8 Aug 2016, at 14:57, Martynas Jusevičius  wrote:
> 
> Hey,
> 
> I am looking for a way to describe a software project in RDF, in detail.
> 
> DOAP vocabulary comes very close: https://github.com/edumbill/doap
> 
> Too bad it looks to be unmaintained. Strangely, the schema does not
> seem to support relationships (dependencies) between projects.
> 
> Are there any other vocabularies I should know about?
> 
> Please do not suggest https://schema.org/SoftwareApplication as it is
> not nearly expressive enough.
> 
> 
> Martynas
> 

Re: How do you explore a SPARQL Endpoint?

[matteo casu]

In order to explore the schema (or better said: the types of the actual 
nodes and properties) you could do:


select ?type1 ?pred ?type2
where {
?subj ?pred ?obj.
?subj a ?type1.
?obj a ?type2.
}

Depending on the triple store, it could be useful to filter some trivial 
types.



Il 22/01/15 15:28, Thomas Francart ha scritto:

SELECT DISTINCT ?type
WHERE {   ?x rdf:type ?type . }

SELECT DISTINCT ?p
WHERE {   ?s ?p ?o .. }

then

SELECT ?s
WHERE {
  ?s a http://uri_of_a_type
} LIMIT 100

and then

DESCRIBE http://uri_of_an_instance

or

SELECT ?p ?o
WHERE {
  http://uri_of_an_instance ?p ?o .
}

Having some statistics on the types may help too :

SELECT ?type (COUNT(?instance) AS ?count)
WHERE {
?instance a ?type .
} GROUP BY ?type


2015-01-22 15:19 GMT+01:00 Luca Matteis lmatt...@gmail.com 
mailto:lmatt...@gmail.com:


Give me all your types seems the most sensible thing to do.
Otherwise full text search.

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Juan Sequeda
juanfeder...@gmail.com mailto:juanfeder...@gmail.com wrote:
 Assume you are given a URL for a SPARQL endpoint. You have no
idea what data
 is being exposed.

 What do you do to explore that endpoint? What queries do you write?

 Juan Sequeda
 +1-575-SEQ-UEDA
 www.juansequeda.com http://www.juansequeda.com




--
*
*
*Thomas Francart* - Sparna
Consultant Indépendant
Data, Sémantique, Contenus, Connaissances
web : http://sparna.fr, blog : http://blog.sparna.fr
Tel :  +33 (0)6.71.11.25.97
Fax : +33 (0)9.58.16.17.14
Skype : francartthomas

Re: Literature on semantic web and similar models

[Matteo Casu]

Dear Milton,

just off the cuff (I hope this was the level of analysis you were looking for):

RDF and semantic web
in my opinion, this is a good article about the linking of RDF with ontologies 
and so, in a sense, between the linked-data and semantic-web communities*: 
http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/people/ian.horrocks/Publications/download/2008/Horr08a.pdf

* this distinction is not standard, but I think it can be drawn to a certain 
extent: on one side, the LOD community, using RDF mainly for inter-operability 
purposes; on the other side, the semantic web community, which is more ground 
within the formal logic and AI tradition, and which prefers OWL more than 
generic RDF as modeling language.

Another great doc on the formal issues behind querying RDF is: 
http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-entailment/  in which SPARQL 1.1 entailment 
regimes are discussed.

In general, finding presentations of the formal underpinning of generic RDF 
(other than the W3C docs, which are by the way excellent) is in general harder. 
Maybe someone else has suggestions about this?

OWL and and first order logic
On the relationship between description logics and FOL (and hence the 
relational model): 
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.58.8255
I recommend in general Ian Horrock's overview articles for those who are 
interested in the formal underpinning of OWL. Look especially on the 
differences between semantic assumptions (such as closed world assumption). 
This path can lead to the connections with the Datalog/Prolog world.

Linked data and Big Data
On the relationship between linked data and big data: 
http://www.fujitsu.com/uk/Images/Linked-data-connecting-and-exploiting-big-data-(v1.0).pdf

XML and RDF
There is a debate going on about the limitations of XML over RDF, but I don't 
have specific references (apart from noting that XML, when used as a data model 
(and not merely as a syntax), can only represent tree-like models).



Il giorno 24/giu/2013, alle ore 18:41, ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program 
metadataport...@yahoo.com ha scritto:

 With all the concurrent, separate and interrelated threads on semantic web 
 and RDF can anyone please tell me if there are some good overview articles on 
 RDF and logical and mathematical models and frameworks for modelling linked 
 data which includes the Semantic web and RDF and (all) other similar schemes?
 
 We are launching an initiative soon to get all issues related to sustainable 
 development into the realm of open access, which includes linked open data, 
 linked data, big data and open repositories. Both the European Union and the 
 United Nations, the latter in particular through the FAO, UNESCO and UNEP are 
 pushing for linked data.
 
 We will be creating a case study register for this category and welcome 
 shared efforts to combine these into one central register.
 
 Milton Ponson
 GSM: +297 747 8280
 PO Box 1154, Oranjestad
 Aruba, Dutch Caribbean
 Project Paradigm: A structured approach to bringing the tools for sustainable 
 development to all stakeholders worldwide by creating ICT tools for NGOs 
 worldwide and: providing online access to web sites and repositories of data 
 and information for sustainable development
 
 This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended 
 solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If 
 you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This 
 message contains confidential information and is intended only for the 
 individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not 
 disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

Re: How can I express containment/composition?

[Matteo Casu]

You could also check the GeoNames ontology, which considers administrative 
subdivisions: http://www.geonames.org/ontology/documentation.html
E.G.: in the USA, level 1 administrative subdivisions are States. In Italy, 
they are Regions. 

It is a minor change of perspective with respect to yours. 


Il giorno 21/feb/2013, alle ore 14:01, Frans Knibbe | Geodan 
frans.kni...@geodan.nl ha scritto:

 Thank you Martynas, that seems to be just what I was looking for!
 
 Frans
 
 On 21-2-2013 13:54, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
 Hey Frans,
 
 Dublin Core Terms has some general properties for this:
 dct:hasPart http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-hasPart
 dct:isPartOf http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-isPartOf
 
 Martynas
 graphity.org
 
 On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Frans Knibbe | Geodan
 frans.kni...@geodan.nl wrote:
 Hello,
 
 I would like to express a composition relationship. Something like:
 A Country consist of Provinces
 A Province consists of Municipalities
 
 I thought this should be straightforward because this is a common and
 logical kind of relationship, but I could not find a vocabulary which allows
 be to make this kind of statement. Perhaps I am bad at searching, or maybe I
 did not use the right words.
 
 I did find this document:
 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/ (Simple
 part-whole relations in OWL Ontologies). It explains that OWL has no direct
 support for this kind of relationship and it goes on to give examples on how
 one can create ontologies that do support the relationship in one way or the
 other.
 
 Is there a ready to use ontology/vocabulary out there that can help me
 express containment/composition?
 
 Thanks in advance,
 Frans
 
 
 
 
 

Re: How can I express containment/composition?

[Matteo Casu]

The contains in GeoSPARQL holds between geometries, not geographic entities, 
so I don't think it would fit your needs.

You can go with GeoNames. The following query should give you the result on a 
triple store (try on the FactForge endpoint or on your data once you have it):

PREFIX gn:http://www.geonames.org/ontology#

SELECT ?country (SUM(xsd:integer(?pop)) as ?tot)
WHERE {
?province gn:featureCode gn:A.ADM1;
 gn:parentCountry ?country;
 gn:population ?pop
}
GROUP BY ?country
ORDER BY DESC(?tot)
LIMIT 1


Il giorno 21/feb/2013, alle ore 15:10, Frans Knibbe | Geodan 
frans.kni...@geodan.nl ha scritto:

 Barry and Matteo, thank you for pointing me to the GeoNames Ontology. 
 Geographical containment can also be found in GeoSPARQL 
 (http://schemas.opengis.net/geosparql/1.0/geosparql_vocab_all.rdf): 
 sfContains.
 
 I had the feeling that what I primarily needed was the logical concept of 
 containment/composition, because that would allow reasoning on the part of 
 the data consumer. But I guess it would be best to specify both logical AND 
 geographical containment. As far as I can tell, the geographical containment 
 in GeoSPARQL and GeoNames does not imply logical containment. But perhaps I 
 am overestimating the power of dcterms:hasPart?
 
 I was thinking about an example. Let's say the following is known:
 
 1) A country consists of provinces
 2) For each country, the complete set of provinces is available
 3) For each province the number of inhabitants is available
 
 Could a machine answer the question Which country has the highest number of 
 inhabitants? without help from a human?
 
 Regards,
 Frans
 
 
 
 On 21-2-2013 14:10, Matteo Casu wrote:
 You could also check the GeoNames ontology, which considers administrative 
 subdivisions: http://www.geonames.org/ontology/documentation.html
 E.G.: in the USA, level 1 administrative subdivisions are States. In Italy, 
 they are Regions.
 
 It is a minor change of perspective with respect to yours.
 
 
 Il giorno 21/feb/2013, alle ore 14:01, Frans Knibbe | Geodan 
 frans.kni...@geodan.nl ha scritto:
 
 Thank you Martynas, that seems to be just what I was looking for!
 
 Frans
 
 On 21-2-2013 13:54, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
 Hey Frans,
 
 Dublin Core Terms has some general properties for this:
 dct:hasPart http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-hasPart
 dct:isPartOf http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-isPartOf
 
 Martynas
 graphity.org
 
 On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Frans Knibbe | Geodan
 frans.kni...@geodan.nl wrote:
 Hello,
 
 I would like to express a composition relationship. Something like:
 A Country consist of Provinces
 A Province consists of Municipalities
 
 I thought this should be straightforward because this is a common and
 logical kind of relationship, but I could not find a vocabulary which 
 allows
 be to make this kind of statement. Perhaps I am bad at searching, or 
 maybe I
 did not use the right words.
 
 I did find this document:
 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/ (Simple
 part-whole relations in OWL Ontologies). It explains that OWL has no 
 direct
 support for this kind of relationship and it goes on to give examples on 
 how
 one can create ontologies that do support the relationship in one way or 
 the
 other.
 
 Is there a ready to use ontology/vocabulary out there that can help me
 express containment/composition?
 
 Thanks in advance,
 Frans
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Re: annotations and RDF

[Matteo Casu]

Thank you Robert!

I've just seen what I think is the new draft (february 5th). I will go through 
it! In the meantime, I'm wondering what you think on the problem of keeping all 
the annotations of a text in RDF vs. keeping them in a separate store and bind 
them to entities in the RDF.

The use case I have in mind is: imagine a book, say The Lord of the Rings. 
Assume we want to annotate domain information in RDF (characters, actions, 
etc..) as well as linguistic (or librarian)-oriented annotations: paragraphs, 
lines, pages (in order to make citations..), down to lemmas and so on..

We could follow the FRBR model and keep in an RDF graph the domain information 
AND some librarian information. But what about the annotations on text as -- 
say -- links between a character and the lines on which they appear?Should 
these be RDF statements? What about the the problem of text duplications in 
annotations which are not independent (e.g. lemmas and sentences)?
Have you (as a community) a definite idea on this issue or perhaps is something 
which is still under observation?




Il giorno 04/feb/2013, alle ore 21:37, Robert Sanderson azarot...@gmail.com 
ha scritto:

 Hi Matteo,
 
 The Annotation Ontology has merged with Open Annotation Collaboration
 in the W3C community group:
  http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/
 
 And Paolo is co-chair along with myself.
 
 We're *just* about to release the next version of the Community Group
 draft, so your interest comes at a great time.
 The NIF folk are also part of the Community Group, and we of course
 would encourage your participation as well!
 
 Many thanks,
 
 Rob Sanderson
 (Open Annotation Community Group co-chair)
 
 
 On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:55 AM, Matteo Casu mattec...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi everybody,
 
 [my apologies for cross posting -- possibly of interest for both communities]
 
 does anybody could point me to the major pros and cons in using the 
 Annotation Ontology [0] [1] vs. the NLP interchange format in the context of 
 annotating (portions of) literary texts? My impression is that when someone 
 is using UIMA, the integration of AO with Clerezza-UIMA could give more 
 comfort wrt NiF.
 
 [0] http://code.google.com/p/annotation-ontology/
 [1] http://www.annotationframework.org/
 [2] http://nlp2rdf.org/about
 

Re: annotations and RDF

[Matteo Casu]

Hi Paolo,

my concerning was about the info for detecting the text fragment: do you use 
a begin/end approach on the document (as in UIMA) without storing the body of 
the text? If it is so, then everything is clear to me.
Forgive me, my point of view is still unripe on the subject, so probably I'm 
just getting caught into a false problem.. :-)




Il giorno 07/feb/2013, alle ore 14:54, Paolo Ciccarese 
paolo.ciccar...@gmail.com ha scritto:

 Hi Matteo,
 in the Domeo Annotation Tool http://annotationframework.org we do exactly 
 that. We create annotation on text fragment(s), images, tables and we store 
 the annotation, together with the info for detecting the text fragments in a 
 RDF in a separate store. In fact, most of hte times we do not control the 
 pages we are looking at. We also use CiTO and FaBIO for storing the 
 bibliographic data and those are based on FRBR. 
 
 Could you give me a concrete example of the duplication problem you are 
 mentioning at the end? 
 
 Best,
 Paolo
 
 On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Matteo Casu mattec...@gmail.com wrote:
 Thank you Robert!
 
 I've just seen what I think is the new draft (february 5th). I will go 
 through it! In the meantime, I'm wondering what you think on the problem of 
 keeping all the annotations of a text in RDF vs. keeping them in a separate 
 store and bind them to entities in the RDF.
 
 The use case I have in mind is: imagine a book, say The Lord of the Rings. 
 Assume we want to annotate domain information in RDF (characters, actions, 
 etc..) as well as linguistic (or librarian)-oriented annotations: 
 paragraphs, lines, pages (in order to make citations..), down to lemmas and 
 so on..
 
 We could follow the FRBR model and keep in an RDF graph the domain 
 information AND some librarian information. But what about the annotations on 
 text as -- say -- links between a character and the lines on which they 
 appear?Should these be RDF statements? What about the the problem of text 
 duplications in annotations which are not independent (e.g. lemmas and 
 sentences)?
 Have you (as a community) a definite idea on this issue or perhaps is 
 something which is still under observation?
 
 
 
 
 Il giorno 04/feb/2013, alle ore 21:37, Robert Sanderson azarot...@gmail.com 
 ha scritto:
 
  Hi Matteo,
 
  The Annotation Ontology has merged with Open Annotation Collaboration
  in the W3C community group:
   http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/
 
  And Paolo is co-chair along with myself.
 
  We're *just* about to release the next version of the Community Group
  draft, so your interest comes at a great time.
  The NIF folk are also part of the Community Group, and we of course
  would encourage your participation as well!
 
  Many thanks,
 
  Rob Sanderson
  (Open Annotation Community Group co-chair)
 
 
  On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:55 AM, Matteo Casu mattec...@gmail.com wrote:
  Hi everybody,
 
  [my apologies for cross posting -- possibly of interest for both 
  communities]
 
  does anybody could point me to the major pros and cons in using the 
  Annotation Ontology [0] [1] vs. the NLP interchange format in the context 
  of annotating (portions of) literary texts? My impression is that when 
  someone is using UIMA, the integration of AO with Clerezza-UIMA could give 
  more comfort wrt NiF.
 
  [0] http://code.google.com/p/annotation-ontology/
  [1] http://www.annotationframework.org/
  [2] http://nlp2rdf.org/about
 
 
 
 

annotations and RDF

[Matteo Casu]

Hi everybody,

[my apologies for cross posting -- possibly of interest for both communities]

does anybody could point me to the major pros and cons in using the Annotation 
Ontology [0] [1] vs. the NLP interchange format in the context of annotating 
(portions of) literary texts? My impression is that when someone is using UIMA, 
the integration of AO with Clerezza-UIMA could give more comfort wrt NiF.

[0] http://code.google.com/p/annotation-ontology/
[1] http://www.annotationframework.org/
[2] http://nlp2rdf.org/about