ontology (6 out of 6)

Microformats2 RDF Ontology

I'm serializing the microformats2 vocabulary into RDF; repo on github.

Disclaimer: This post is (not necessarily coherant) notes as I go along.

Useful notes by Tom Morris about mf2 to RDF mapping on the microformats wiki. I updated the namespace to use the one suggested there (http://microformats.org/profile/).

Everything starting with h- looks like it's a class. Typically RDF classes are capitalised so this makes me cringe, but I'll cope.

Woah, there are a lot of properties. Seventy unique properties. I didn't realise. On the wiki most don't have a description, many are duplicated in the list, and none of them seem to have their own description page (and thus no URIs to refer to them with). Pasting them into a spreadsheet was the quickest way to de-dup and alphabetise them. Now I'm working through one at a time, adding descriptions and mapping them to existing properties in FOAF (because many are obvious), VCard (because many (all?) are derived from this), ActivityStreams 2.0 (because SocialWebWG) and hesitantly Dublin Core and SIOC. Where they map to something well-described in RDF, I don't bother with rdfs:comment and domain and range of their own, but I'll add for those with no good sameAs mappings.

• Is dt-reviewed same as dt-published? If not, why do reviews get special treatment with regards to differentiation between when they're written and published, and nothing else does?
• Is there an official definition of e-content? Couldn't find one on the wiki, so made one up that is compatible with AS2.0 content, with additional caveat about including markup, which is explicit on the mf2 wiki: "The contents of something like a post, including markup and embedded elements."
• Are e-description and e-instructions sub-properties of e-content?

I keep getting caught out by AS2.0 terms that are in the JSON-LD document but are actually deprecated (the JSON-LD contains no information other than property and class names and sometimes types; I have to remember to check the written docs). Eg. as2:author -> as2:attributedTo.

• I couldn't find an AS2.0 equivalent property for category. Am I missing something? Oh wait, tag will do it.
• How does p-description from p-summary?
• Wiki says p-education should contain a nested h-card (of school and location). Doesn't that mean it should be an e- or have I misunderstood that completely?
• It also says p-education is "an education h-calendar event" but h-calendar doesn't exist, it's h-event. Probably just a typo? Ditto p-experience.
• ActivityStreams2.0 doesn't have a name property for Actors (only displayName). Interesting.
• Wiki says label 'new in vCard4' but vCard4 says it's deprecated, and in any case was for address labels, so not sure what use this is in mf2.
• What's p-note for specifically?
• Why is p-reviewer not just p-author?
• Maybe I just don't know how to read the vCard4 spec, but the mf2 wiki says sex and gender-identity are part of it, but all I can see is hasGender.

AS2.0 has rating but it's explicitly defined as "a non-negative decimal number between 0.0 and 5.0 (inclusive) with one decimal place of precision". MF2 says it's a number between 1 and 5. I think even less specification is better, as ratings come in come in many forms. Anyway, because I'm not venturing into SKOS, I'm owl:sameAsing them for the time being.

Update: Dropped all domains and ranges because all properties in microformats2 are actually global.

🏷 http://vocab.amy.so/blog#Doing http://vocab.amy.so/blog#Doing activitystreams as2 foaf hacking indieweb json-ld linked data mf2 microformats2 ontologies ontology owl rdf socialwg vcard w3c

Sun 22nd of March 2015 at 3:00pm (+00:00)

Last modified: Tue 28th of April 2015 at 5:49pm (+01:00)

Amy wrote about http://vocab.amy.so/blog#Done, http://vocab.amy.so/blog#Done, linked data, foaf, ontology, pedantry, note to self, & primary topic

FOAF isPrimaryTopicOf... not FOAF primaryTopicOf... note to self.

🏷 http://vocab.amy.so/blog#Done http://vocab.amy.so/blog#Done foaf linked data note to self ontology pedantry primary topic

Sun 15th of February 2015 at 4:11pm (+00:00)

Ontology of the Feels

I had an idea for a tiny wee project to do with quantified self. More on that later.

Because I'm trying to use linked data for everything, for reasons beyond the scope of this post, the first thing I did was sketch out the data I need to store in a graph structure. I need to record emotions, so I did a quick search for ontologies that represent emotions, figuring psychologists and the like must have been at this for years already.

Sure enough I found a few, but the most convincing one, the HUMAINE Emotion Annotation & Representation Language (EARL) is in XML rather than OWL.

Yay! Time to convert a well structured and useful dataset into RDF. Always a Good Thing.

EARL

EARL comes as many files, and goes beyond what I need. But it's not huge, and with a little effort (and looking some stuff on Wikipedia) I think I can understand what's going on enough to convert the lot.

Note: There's apparently a lot of disagreement about terms and stuff in this area. Not something I'm invested in, so I'm just going to roll with this XML.

There are:

• Categories (names of emotions)
• Dimensions (ways of describing intensity, I think)
• Modality types (the means through which the emotion was expressed, eg. face)
• Regulation attributes (response to an emotion)
• Appraisal attributes (a list of other descriptive terms; emotional metadata, if you will)
• Emotion times (start and end)

Emotional occurrences can have all of the above as properties, as well as probability and intensity. Complex emotional occurrences have times, and contain a minimum of two emotional occurrences with the above properties.

The terms are all taken from various different psychological experiments or schools of thought. There are alternative versions of some of these things from something called AIBO. Arbitrarily I'm ignoring everything prefixed AIBO for now.

Converting

I'm going through the files and writing everything relevant out, then drawing it as a graph.

First juncture: do I use all the attributes (like the list of 55 emotions) as properties (as they are demonstrated in the original XML) or use classes? Properties seems messy, and feels less extensible, even though technically I suppose it's not.

Maybe they should be properties. Except the categories, they all (or at least most) have corresponding DBPedia entries that it would be stupid not to take advantage of. But the dimensions, regulation and appraisal might be better suited to being properties, otherwise I'm having pointless identifiers or blank nodes everywhere. And nobody wants that.

I adjusted the Samples thing a bit, mostly to simplify it, and I may have got it wrong, but I think it makes sense.

Then I typed it all into WebProtege. As a result, I think quite a few things are overspecified. What do you think? Check it out: http://vocab.amy.so/earl.

🏷 http://vocab.amy.so/blog#Doing http://vocab.amy.so/blog#Doing conversion emotion emotions feelstracker hacking learning linked data ontology rdf semantic web

Mon 21st of April 2014 at 9:30pm (+00:00)

Last modified: Mon 21st of April 2014 at 9:30pm (+00:00)

Week(s) in review: #SSSW2013, figuring stuff out and annotating YouTube

8th - 14th July

Semantic Web Summer School, much heat, much fun, much learning... Here's an index of my posts.

15th - 21st July

Friends visited. Progress included writing notes to myself to figure out just what my PhD outcomes really are, and why. Came up with:

1\\\\. Recommending how to usefully describe diverse amateur creative digital content (ACDC) using an ontology.
a) What are the parts of ACDC that need to be represented? Identify and categorise properties. How do these differentiate it from other similar content?
b) What existing ontologies can be used to do this, and how do they need to be extended?

2\\\\. Building an initial set of linked data about ACDC, and providing means for its growth and use.
a) Manual annotation of ACDC, and refinement (to test ontology).
b) Tools for automatic annotation of the parts of ACDC that it is possible to automatically annotate.
c) Tools for manual annotation by the community of content creators and consumers for the parts of ACDC that cannot be automatically annotated.
d) Tools to expose the linked data for use by third-party applications.

3\\\\. Create and test an example service which uses the linked data to benefit content creators and/or consumers.
eg. Unobtrusive recommendations for collaborative partners (most likely); content recommendation; content consumption analysis (like tracking viral content); community building / knowledge sharing in this domain; ... .

22nd - 28th July

Brainstormed with Ewan about stage 3 (above), and came up with the idea of an interface that allows content creators to allocate varying degrees of credit for roles played by different people when collaborating on a project. This would serve to both gather collaborative bibliographic data, learn things about how different segments of the community allocate credit, and provide a potentially useful tool for content creators. With the future value that, if we can learn enough to estimate role inputs from different people, it could be used for things like automatic revenue sharing.

Then spent the rest of the week in London, frolicking amongst the YouTubers (including attending a meeting at Google about secret YouTube-y stuff), and annotated some ACDC. Write-up coming soon.

🏷 http://vocab.amy.so/blog#Doing http://vocab.amy.so/blog#Doing acdc amateur creative digital content annotation content creators google ontology phd semantic web summer school semantic web sssw2013 week in review youtube youtubers

Sun 28th of July 2013 at 9:00pm (Z)

Last modified: Tue 30th of July 2013 at 2:58pm (Z)

[Notes] Natasha Noy at #SSSW2013

Collaborative ontology development from Natasha Noy (sssw2012)

Stanford, Protégé.

In past 10-15 years, through collaboration with scientists (particularly biomed), ontologies have become essential.

Don't need to sell ontologies to scientists, they believe in it.

Focus on science because that's where she has experience etc.

We're not so bad at versioning ontologies, more versioning data is the problem.

Experts add stuff, curator checks quality, and publishes upcoming tasks.

Similar to open source developments, but no research to compare the two.
\\\\- Different because biomed people are paid (well).

ICD - International Classification of Diseases.

• Started 17th century.
• Causes of death, medical bills, policy making.
• Revised in 80s over 8 annual conferences.
  • 17-58 countries, 1-5 person delegations, mainly health statisticians.
  • Manual, on paper.
  • Whoever shouted loudest..
  • Paper copies, only English, pdf.
• ICD-11 - OWL ontology!
  • Open, Protégé (a customised, Web version), links to others.

Conflict resolution:

• People naturally don't step on each others' toes.

• Users expect stuff like Web 2.0 interactions, Web interface. Web Protégé:

• No consistency checking - coming but currently must go offline.
• Ontologies are solution to everything - versioning, roles, social interactions.
• Also plugins are the solutions to everything - visualisations.

🏷 http://vocab.amy.so/blog#Done http://vocab.amy.so/blog#Done collaborative ontology development events notes ontology phd semantic web

Tue 9th of July 2013 at 4:25pm (Z)

Last modified: Wed 17th of July 2013 at 4:26pm (Z)

Notes about ontology creation methodologies (2 papers)

Yesterday I unexpectedly read two whole papers about ontology development methodologies. They were open in tabs I don't remember opening, but presumably did so during our weekly Ontologies With A View meeting last Friday. There are still a bunch more tabs open with papers or articles about the same thing, so maybe I'll read those later..

The notes are here more or less as I scribbled them down whilst reading, and I haven't expanded with any analysis or discussion as of yet.

Notes in purple are things I intend/need to investigate further; colour-coding is just for me, really.

Jean Vincent Fonou-Dombeu & Magda Husiman (2011) Combining Ontology Development Methodologies **and Semantic Web Platforms for E-government **Domain Ontology Development. International Journal of Web & Semantic Technology (IJWesT) Vol.2, No.2, April 2011

• Start by describing ontology in a human-readable way, then turn to RDF (etc) to be machine readable.

• Says there's not sufficient practical research around existing technologies or ontology development guidelines that would allow non-experts in e-government domain to make ontologies.

• Uses framework from Uschold & King (see later in this post) to describe ontology - technique used here should be platform independent.
• Then uses UML to semi-formally represent ontology

• Uses Protege and Jena to convert to OWL and RDF

• Paper's goal is to produce guidelines for e-government developers to create semantic content AND strengthen adoption of Semantic Web technologies in governments (particularly developing countries).

• Outlines RDF, OWL, Protege and Jena (described as leading platforms; mentions other platforms: WebODE, OntoEdit, KAON1, Sesame).

• Very critical of other literature; either ontologies have been produced but no practical information given; they've been developed with proprietary platforms; or they're only conceptual and don't say how they could actually be constructed with existing technologies. other studies have not focused on a methodological approach, which means nothing is easily repeatable.

• Detailed comparative studies of methodologies in:

  • • M. Fernandez-Lopez, “Overview of Methodologies for Building Ontologies, ⁂ In Proceedings of the IJCAI-99 workshop on Ontologies and Problem-Solving Methods (KRR5), Stockholm, Sweden, 2 August, 1999.
  • H. Beck and H.S Pinto, “Overview of Approach, Methodologies, Standards, and Tools for Ontologies,⁂ Agricultural Ontology Service (UNFAO), 2003.
  • C. Calero, F. Ruiz and M. Piattini, “Ontologies for Software Engineering and Software Technology, ⁂ Calero.Ruiz.Piattini (Eds.), Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2006.

• Case study: Ontology for monitoring development projects in developing countries (OntoDPM)

  1. Create with Protege:

     • class heirarchies
     • slots
     • domain and range of slots
     • Based on the UML
     • Saved as OWL
  2. Then put content in RDF with Jena




*Mike Uschold and Martin King (1995) **Towards a Methodology for Building Ontologies. Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing, IJCAI-95.

• Steps:

  1. identify purpose

  2. build ontology

     • capture
     • coding
     • integrating existing ontologies
  3. evaluation
  4. documentation
• Purpose
  • Many ontologies are intended for reuse
  • Should survey purposes to clarify options for future projects
• Building
  • Capture
    • Identify key concepts and relationships in domain of interest
    • Produce unambiguous text definitions for these
    • Identify terms for these
    • Agree on all of the above
  • Coding
    • Explicit representation of conceptualisation in a formal language (choose a language)
  • When can capture and coding stages be merged?
  • Differences between building ontology and creating a general knowledge base (thinking about methodology will help with this)
  • Integrating (during either or both of above)
    • Work must be done in agreement between communities
    • Make explicit all assumptions underlying an ontology
• Evaluation
  • Judge against requirements specification (and/or)
  • Judge against competency questions (and/or)
  • Judge against real life
  • This paper looks at knowledge base systems, and adapts for ontologies.

• Documentation

  • Desirable to have established guidelines for documenting
  • Main barrier to effective knowledge sharing is inadequate documentation
  • ALL important assumptions should be documented

• Case Study

  • Main emphasis is on capture phase
  • Initially:
    • define ontology (Gruber)
    • identify users and usage (initially abstract, then clarify with real life)
    • choose language (Ontolingua was chosen)
    • choose method for capture - BDSM (IBM) supported by others:
    • KADS
    • IDEF5
    • OO Analysis and Design techinques
    • Gruber's principles for ontology design

  • Categorisation is fundamental to the human condition (Lakoff)

    • Not heirarchical, but:

    • GENERAL
      ^
      BASIC -> primary with respect to knowledge organisation
      v
      SPECIFIC

    • eg.
      SUPER: Animal / Furniture
      BASIC: Dog / Chair
      SUB: Retriever / Rocker
    • Certain concepts used subconsciously, rather than understood intellectually.
      • These have a more important psychological status.
    • Therefore paper uses middle-out approach to capture terms
      • (bottom-up = too much detail unnecessarily,
      • top-down = risks imprecision)
    • BASIC concepts first because:
      • most important
      • used to define non-BASIC terms
      • increase clarity, especially for non-technical use
      • backed by BSDM experience of paper author
• Scoping
  • Brainstorming
  • Consult corpora if there aren't enough domain experts to brainstorm
  • Grouping
    • structure terms into naturally arising sub-groups
    • collate synonyms
    • consider things that might refer to each other
• Meta-ontology
  • Don't commit too early, can restrict thinking. Let concepts and relationships themselves determine requirements.
  • Be consistent.
  • Use technologically neutral language ('thing' vs 'entity').
  • Start with areas where there's most overlap.
  • Work from basic terms to more abstract ones within an area.
• Producing definitions
  • Agreeing on definitions (varying degrees of problems)
  • Handling ambiguous terms
    • clarify ideas without technical terms
    • use a dictionary!
    • label definitions, eg. x1, x2
    • determine most important concept
    • choose a term, avoiding original ambigious one
  • Avoid new terms
  • Terms get in the way (peoples' preconceived ideas) - concentrate on underlying meaning and concepts.

🏷 http://vocab.amy.so/blog#Doing http://vocab.amy.so/blog#Doing methodologies ontologies ontologieswithaview ontology building ontology phd rdf semantic web

Wed 21st of November 2012 at 12:43pm (Z)

Last modified: Mon 1st of April 2013 at 12:10am (Z)