Sorry, I don't have this file any more. Most triples are visible though, so it's easy to create a similar example hands-on. The mechanism of storing such CONSTRUCT queries has changed since I wrote the blog entry (3 years ago!) - we now use the property spin:query to store such mappings (was: sparql:query). In many cases, using SPIN's rule mechanism is a better option now, because you can more clearly attach mapping rules to the classes that they are talking about, using spin:rule.
Holger On Aug 19, 2009, at 12:17 PM, ol3j wrote: > > Hi, > > Thx for comment. > > Holger, could you send me example files from > http://composing-the-semantic-web.blogspot.com/2006/09/ontology-mapping-with-sparql-construct.html > > . > You wrote in comments that it is possible. If it isnt problem and you > still have the files. GUI for alignment ontology will be very helpful > tool in Composer. > > ol3j > > On 12 Sie, 18:40, Holger Knublauch <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi ol3j, >> >> TopBraid currently does not have an interactive graphical mapping >> editor like the one on your first screenshot. This is one of the >> things I always planned to do but never really had time to finish. As >> described in my blog, the diagram view can visualize SPARQL-based >> mappings (using spin:query) in class diagrams, but there is no way to >> define new mappings this way. >> >> SPIN has various mechanisms though to make the definition of such >> mappings as easy as possible though. In particular you can define a >> library of SPIN templates for typical patterns. Then you would just >> need to instantiate those templates (which can actually be done >> nicely >> with the Graph view of TBC). >> >> Holger >> >> On Aug 12, 2009, at 1:11 AM, ol3j wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> So, I can merge two files with different ontology by use import tab >>> and export/merge OWL/RDF files. I would like to know that is any >>> possibility alignment ontology in TopBraid using GUI for example >>> (http://webhome.cs.uvic.ca/~seanf/images/cogz_screenshot.png). I >>> know >>> that I can use SPARQL for example >>> http://composing-the-semantic-web.blogspot.com/2006/09/ontology-mappi >>> ... >>> you fix images, I don't see). >> >>> Thanks >>> ol3j >> >>> On 6 Lip, 18:30, Dean Allemang <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Obrst, Leo J. wrote: >>>>> Perhaps then you already have the capabilities that e-connections >>>>> or comparable notions are intended to provide? Basically it is >>>>> both a way to logically partition a given ontology into sub- >>>>> domains and also a way to have mappings among ontologies which are >>>>> much finer-grained than imports, and not just reduced to ordinary >>>>> OWL equivalence assertions (sameAs, etc.) >> >>>>> There are a couple of such notions floating around: e-connections, >>>>> Distributed Description Logic (DDL), etc. For example, [1]. >> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Leo >> >>>> In principle, owl:imports can be as fine-grained as you like; you >>>> could >>>> have a bunch of named graphs with a single triple apiece. That's >>>> in >>>> principle, but in practice it doesn't deviate that much. If you >>>> have a >>>> tool that make managing multiple named graphs / OWL files easy, you >>>> can >>>> split your ontology into a large number of pieces, and manage them >>>> with >>>> owl:imports. We have been doing this successfully for year. >>>> Back the >>>> the Protege days, managing a dozen such modules was an onus. We >>>> typically manage several dozen nowadays, and occasionally in the >>>> hundreds, without undue stress on project management. >> >>>> Furthermore, within SPARLQMotion, you can define (with a SPARQL >>>> CONSTRUCT) just what part of an ontology you are really interested >>>> in, >>>> and pass that on to the next SM module. This has the advantage of >>>> keeping within standards as closely as possible (eg, SPARQL doing >>>> all >>>> the heavy lifting for defining sets of triples), while providing >>>> capabilities of the sort you are describing. >> >>>> But of course, Holger's comment about extra plugins is the real >>>> answer - >>>> even if I am correct that with SM and our multiple ontology >>>> management >>>> infrastructure, we can support many of the same requirements, you >>>> might >>>> still want to support e-connections etc. >> >>>> Dean > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Composer Users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-composer-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
