QUDT - issues and prospects?

[Simon Cox]

Since QUDT has been put on the table, I'd like to ask if anyone has any insight about its future maintenance and governance? I tried to contact the NASA editors, but did not receive a reply. Since TopQuadrant were the other part of the development team, perhaps someone listening to this list has some information? 

There are some issues with QUDT that make it hard to integrate into bigger projects. 

For example, the current version uses skos:exactMatch properties to relate many QUDT classes to DBpedia resources. 

Under SKOS semantics both domain and range of the semantic relations (including exactMatch) is skos:Concept. 

So the QUDT resources are both Class and Individual, which is not OWL-DL compliant. These properties could be replaced with rdfs:seeAlso to remove the problem. 

Any news? 

Simon Cox

On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 6:28 AM, <topbrai...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

  Today's Topic Summary

Group: http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-users/topics

• qudt name spaces [1 Update]

 qudt name spaces

Michel Bohms <michel...@gmail.com> Jun 29 10:15AM +0200  

Thx this really helps (I used the wrong schema one...).
Next issue I have is with the many imports I need vaem etc. only using the
quantity vocabulary.
I put this one a bit better specified in a seperate mail.
 
thx a lot, Michel
 
2013/6/28 Ralph TQ [Gmail] <rhod...@topquadrant.com>
 


 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group topbraid-users.
You can post via email.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an empty message.
For more options, visit this group.

--
-- 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
topbrai...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
topbraid-user...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-users?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to topbraid-user...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Ralph Hodgson]

I am the lead ontologist for QUDT and the NASA QUDT Handbook being produced (using SWP and LaTeX generators) from release 2 of QUDT. This release is substantially larger, having all of ISO 80000 domains.

Currently we are in an editorial review of the handbook at NASA HQ. After that there will be a technical review within NASA.

In the next 2 to 3 weeks we will be releasing a subset of release 2 for beta testing.

A presentation on QUDT was recently made at PDE2013 - see http://www.scribd.com/doc/144117099/The-NASA-QUDT-Quantities-Units-Dimensions-and-Data-Types-Handbook-and-Ontologies-–-A-Model-Based-Foundation-for-Quantitative-Data-Alignment-and-E

I note your question on OWL-DL compliance. This is hard to do when SKOS is in the mix. Why do you need OWL-DL compliance? What kind of inferencing do you have the need for? If its simply for integrity checks on the models, we have ways of doing that using SPIN.

[Holger Knublauch]

On 7/11/2013 12:37, Ralph Hodgson wrote:

I am the lead ontologist for QUDT and the NASA QUDT Handbook being produced (using SWP and LaTeX generators) from release 2 of QUDT. This release is substantially larger, having all of ISO 80000 domains.

Currently we are in an editorial review of the handbook at NASA HQ. After that there will be a technical review within NASA.

In the next 2 to 3 weeks we will be releasing a subset of release 2 for beta testing.

A presentation on QUDT was recently made at PDE2013 - see�http://www.scribd.com/doc/144117099/The-NASA-QUDT-Quantities-Units-Dimensions-and-Data-Types-Handbook-and-Ontologies-�-A-Model-Based-Foundation-for-Quantitative-Data-Alignment-and-E

I note your question on OWL-DL compliance. This is hard to do when SKOS is in the mix. Why do you need OWL-DL compliance? What kind of inferencing do you have the need for? If its simply for integrity checks on the models, we have ways of doing that using SPIN.

Also, for OWL DL compliance just download a copy of QUDT and delete the triples that you don't want the OWL DL reasoners to see. Something like

DELETE WHERE {
��� ?a skos:exactMatch ?b .
}

Holger

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 9:50:30 PM UTC-4, Simon Cox wrote:

Since QUDT has been put on the table, I'd like to ask if anyone has any insight about its future maintenance and governance? I tried to contact the NASA editors, but did not receive a reply. Since TopQuadrant were the other part of the development team, perhaps someone listening to this list has some information?�

There are some issues with QUDT that make it hard to integrate into bigger projects.�

For example, the current version uses skos:exactMatch properties to relate many QUDT classes to DBpedia resources.�

Under SKOS semantics both domain and range of the semantic relations (including exactMatch) is skos:Concept.�

So the QUDT resources are both Class and Individual, which is not OWL-DL compliant. These properties could be replaced with rdfs:seeAlso to remove the problem.�

Any news?�

Simon Cox

--
-- 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
topbrai...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
topbraid-user...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-users?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to topbraid-user...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

�
�

[David Price]

OWL 2 punning means most DL tools now do not require separation of Class and Individual, so in fact there should be no problem with exactMatch.

Cheers,
David

[Simon Cox]

Is OWL2 punning in the DL profile? I thought it was only OWL Full. 

All the exactMatch and closeMatch assertions in QUDT relate to resources of rdf:type owl:Class. 

Surely owl:equivalentClass would be more appropriate? 

There is really no need to even call on punning.  

Simon

[David Price]

In OWL Full there is no need for punning as a concept at all. Punning exists in OWL 2 exactly to support meta-modeling in the OWL 2 Direct Semantics spec.

equivalentClass and exactMatch do not have the same semantics. However, I'm not familiar with the details of the design rationale for QUDT so can't really comment more on decisions made there.

Cheers,

David