Re: [higgins-dev] Re: LDAP "person" sample ontology based on Higgins ont

[Dale Olds <dolds@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Um... I'm not sure if my Tony-sarcasm detector is working, but I think
the IP issues are in order. 

As I see it, Tom, Mark, Paul and others are collaborating on an XML
document that specifies some owl stuff. It's quite similar to many other
schemas, and is based on the LDAP schema. There are some places when
"bandit-project" is listed in the URL (although that doesn't concern me
as much as URLs that contain "file:///c:/" ;-) ) but I think such URLs
are for illustration at this point. 

Tom's input to Higgins and this collaborative process is approved by
Novell -- as it is for all the Bandits.  Where do you see a potential IP
issue?

--Dale

On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 05:23 -0500, Anthony Nadalin wrote:
> I have to assume that since I have not seen these comments on the list
> (that I could see) that there are no IP issues and that Novell can
> make the claims. 
> 
> Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122
> Inactive hide details for Tom"Tom Doman" <TDoman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
>                                 "Tom Doman" <TDoman@xxxxxxxxxx> 
>                                 Sent by: higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
>                                 
>                                 09/21/2006 07:59 PM 
>                                 Please respond to
>                                 "Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions" <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>                                 
> 
>                To
> 
> <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Mark Wahl" <Mark.Wahl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
>                cc
> 
> 
> 
>           Subject
> 
> [higgins-dev] Re:
> LDAP "person"
> sample ontology
> based on Higgins
> ontology
> 
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> Attached is an updated sample of the LDAP "person" ontology that Mark
> has been commenting on.  This one will actually load in Protégé,
> wahoo!  I added the additional definitions for the OID equivalence
> references as Mark suggested and it still wouldn't load.  Then I
> noticed that the Properties were loading just fine, but not the
> Classes.  So I looked at the Class definitions and noticed the
> equivalence references had not had the '#' prefixed on them.  That
> fixed it so it would load.
> 
> Then I looked at the Property equivalence references and noticed they
> did NOT have the '#' prefixed on them either.  I looked at them in
> Protégé and realized that, for Property definitions, it assumes I'm
> referencing some global definition.  When I added the '#' prefix, it
> used the "bandit" ones I had defined as per Mark's suggestion in my
> ontology file.
> 
> So, this brings up the question, which should we be using?  I've been
> following Sebastian Dietzold's lead on these where he did NOT prefix
> the '#' on either class or property equivalences which I assumed meant
> he was referencing an already globally defined URN that OWL parsers
> would allow.  However, if that was true, I wouldn't have to define the
> urn:oid locally as Mark suggested.  Is there some difference between
> Class definitions and Property definitions that I'm missing?  Based on
> what I've seen, I could eliminate all the extra ObjectProperty
> definitions and be fine as long as the property equivalences don't use
> the '#'.  But if I do that, what am I actually referencing?  And, why
> can't I do that for OWL classes?  More aid for an OWL newbie needed!
>  :)
> 
> BTW, thanks again Mark.  I did download a couple of OWL plugins for
> Protégé including the Manchester plugin but it doesn't appear on my
> tools.  I got the WonderWeb validator to show up but it doesn't handle
> the local "import" statement for the higgins ontology correctly so
> that didn't help either.  Just figured it out the old fashioned way.
> 
> Tom Doman
> Novell Inc.
> 
> >>> "Tom Doman" <TDoman@xxxxxxxxxx> 9/21/2006 4:48 PM >>>
> Again, thanks Mark, you are correct, I left off the "Of".
> 
> I think you're right about the object properties for the references
> equivalents because Protégé gave a different stack with it's latest
> failure that seems to indicate it's looking for referenced properties
> that aren't defined.  I'll try that next.
> 
> Tom Doman
> Novell Inc.
> 
> >>> Mark Wahl <Mark.Wahl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 9/20/2006 7:43 PM >>>
> Tom Doman wrote:
> 
> > Good catch!  Thanks!  Unfortunately, Protégé still isn't happy with
> it.
> 
> I also noticed that you are using rdfs:subProperty.  Do you perhaps
> mean rdfs:subPropertyOf?  (I don't remember seeing the former in
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/).
> 
> With these two changes, your file appears to be OWL-Full.
> 
> Another observation- Your object properties for your data model attrs
> have
> owl:equivalentProperty rdf:resource="urn:oid:...".  It might be good
> for this OWL file to also have owl:ObjectProperty
> rdf:about="urn:oid:..."
> definitions for each of these attributes, otherwise parsers will run
> into
> difficulty as they won't know the RDF "type" of the resource indicated
> by the URN.  Similarly, you might also want to have owl:Class
> definitions
> for each of the object class OIDs.  (The Manchester parser gives these
> as
> reasons why your file is not OWL-DL or OWL-Lite).
> 
> Mark Wahl
> Informed Control Inc.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> higgins-dev mailing list
> higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev
> 
> (See attached file:
> HigginsLDAP0.1.3.owl)_______________________________________________
> higgins-dev mailing list
> higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> higgins-dev mailing list
> higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev