Bruce; Some responses below.
On Oct 11, 11:55 am, Bruce Whealton <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello,
> I wanted to ask about an approach to setting up a form for using
> TBC with a particular RDF file that I am editing. As is often the case, I
> am using several ontologies. However, I don't use every property or class
> from the ontology. Sometimes it can be difficult just working with one
> ontology. For example, the Resume/CV vocabulary has various different
> classes for a CV that relates to a person. I might want to add a skill and
> then associate it with a course or training. That particular vocabulary
> doesn't include a way to directly relate a course with a skill or a set of
> topics taught in the training.
I take it you mean hos the properties appear in the Composer form?
I'll first warn not to mistake Composer for an end-user application
such as data entry. If you really need specialized features, then
building a Web application with SWP or SWA is the best choice for now.
But in this case, all you'd need to do is to add the domain of the
classes where you want the property to appear for an instance. An
alternative is to use local restrictions on the class. Either way,
it's perfectly legitimate to extend over existing models, as long as
there are no outright contradictions. For more flexibility, see the
next response.
> In addition, the topic or topics of the
> course are skos:Concepts which are described by foaf:Documents. This
> presents quite a challenge for creating a workflow, especially when one
> realizes that some of these classes are sub-classes of others.
> 1) Can one remove and reorganize the properties that relate to a Class.
Yes, you should take a look at > User Interface Overview > Resource
Editor > Form Layout Panel. Basically you can define a layout for a
class and all instances will use that layout.
> For example, if one was entering Course or Education information I'd want
> the ov:teaches property to always be there for each Instance of Course that
> I am adding. Or if I was describing a person using FOAF:Person, that is
> editing an instance of a Person.I may not need to see every property for a
> foaf:Person
As long as you model these on classes, form layout will get you what
you need. Form layout does apply to instances of subclasses, so you
may need to adjust your subclass structure accordingly.
> 2) If I am working with several vocabularies, such as dc, schema.org and
> bibo (for bibliography information) to store information about publications
> associated with an online magazine, and the people that are published in
> the magazine. So, I want to enter information about a Poem that is
> published. It would be nice to have the properties from dc, bibo, and
> schema.org together on one form instead of having to first use the
> schema.org class and it's properties then go and create an additional entry
> or instance using the DC classes and properties. Is there a way to do this?
I'm not entirely clear on the scenario, but you can always use
owl:imports for Dublin Core, etc. and they will be available in the
model. Also, although there is nothing wrong with a resource having
more than one type (i.e. an instance of more than one class), it does
present problems for Form Layout because it won't be able to tell
which form to pick up. Just something to look out for with Form
layout, which seems to be fitting your needs well.
> Next, if I have a vocabulary that I am using such as the Relationships
> vocabulary, but I need to add no more than 2 or 3 properties that are not
> part of the official REL vocabulary, I will obviously need to publish my
> own version of REL, REL-E, for REL extended. Do I publish my ontology with
> just the 3 properties and reference the original REL ontology, or do I
> include the original ontology and just add my own 3 properties (Or
> classes).
I'd suggest publishing with a reference to the "official" model. That
way you extensions are always in reference to the most current model.
> I'm just wondering about a best practice for publishing an
> ontology that is only slightly modified, in some cases one might only need
> one additional property. So, does one publish that modified ontology with
> just the one property in it - and I suppose a link to the original
> vocabulary/ontology. Of course, if one did publish the new
> ontology/vocabulary with a new namespace others may not be able to use that
> data because they do not recognize the new namespace.
>
> Lastly, if I am given an ontology to edit, and it is in owl format with the
> owl file extension...
TopBraid does not support OWL/XML files. This is a non-standard
format used by a few editors. Protégé does support exports to Turtle
and RDF/XML, and TopBraid supports these text serialization formats,
as well as N-Triples. So export to one of those formats and drag/drop
into a TopBraid workspace.
> I'm not sure how to open it in TBC so that it is easy
> to visualize, and the proper prefixes or even full URIs are there.
You may have lost me there. If the file can be opened by Composer,
and had class definitions, the Classes View will show the classes.
Same for properties. In both cases a type triple is necessary to show
up in the Classes or Properties View. I.e. the Classes view only
shows resources that are declared to be of type owl:Class (by
definition a subclass of owl:Thing) or rdfs:Class. The Properties
view only shows resources that are declared to be of type rdf:Property
or any subclasss thereof.
To see all of your data, try looking at the Triples View - Window >
Show View > Triples, or use the SPARQL View to query the data - you
can always start with SELECT * WHERE {?s ?p ?o} to get the first 1,000
matches and modify the query to iteratively explore the data.
> I was
> able to do this in Protege editor but I did something wrong in TBC. I
> created a project for this first then I put the ontology into the project
> folder and then I opened it by double clicking on it in TBC.
...and? Was there an error? What didn't happen that you expected?
> Maybe I need
> to create a base file and then import the ontology into it, instead of just
> dropping it into the project folder and then opening it as is.
That should work just fine, with the aforementioned caveats.
-- Scott
--
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Group "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include Enterprise Vocabulary
Network (EVN), TopBraid Composer, TopBraid Live,
TopBraid Ensemble, SPARQLMotion, SPARQL Web Pages and SPIN.
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-users?hl=en
