Hi John,
Quite impressive presentation, you are right the effects were awesome
especially helpful with the model document in the end.
John@smtp.duke.edu wrote:
36D96138-D535-435B-8616-97A560FC4D3B@duke.edu"
type="cite">Patrick et al,
Occurs to me others form ODF meta might like
to see these files as well.
This is the presentation and model document
that I presented at the Anatomic Pathology Informatics conference
(APIII) in Pittsburgh a few weeks back.
My presentation is here. I did it on Mac, so
those who want to see the original Keynote version can download it at
Powerpoint, pdf and Quicktime versions of
the presentation, together with the sample document that shows how an
XForms in an ODF document can be rendered in RDF and potentially
submitted (see comments to Patrick below) are at the other link:
BTW Patrick's bundle still contains the keynote version as well.
36D96138-D535-435B-8616-97A560FC4D3B@duke.edu"
type="cite">
There was a lot of enthusiasm for this
there, but a lot of folks there are non-ODF'ers so I think some of it
went a bit past them in a 10-minute presentation. Nevertheless, I got
many positive comments.
Congratulations!
Svante
36D96138-D535-435B-8616-97A560FC4D3B@duke.edu"
type="cite">
Cheers!
John
On Oct 12, 2007, at 12:16 PM, John F. Madden, MD, PhD wrote:
Hi Patrick,
The materials from my presentation are
downloadable at:
It's a big zip file because I included
the presentation as ppt, pdf and also as a quicktime movie because the
animations in the Keynote version didn't translate well to either ppt
or pdf.
The ODF document is a simulated pathology
report that generates an RDF file from the filled-out XForms in the
document. It does it through an unnecessarily complicated mechanism, as
I wrote this document so as to support both a conventional "concrete"
XML form data representation as well as the RDF form data
representation, and the two alternative representations are
"intertwined".
When I redo this document -- as I will
sometime soon -- I will remove the concrete XML and put all the data
directly into RDF.
To add this feature to OpenOffice, you
would merely have to support a form submission action that would save
the generated RDF to the ODF document package itself (rather than
posting it to a url or saving it as a local file, which are the
currently supported submit actions). I don't think there is a way for a
user to create such a submit action in OpenOffice, but it should be a
totally trivial job for one of the Sun programmers. The barrier is just
that the ODF document is zipped, and it is hard to write directly to a
zipped file !!!
John
On Oct 12, 2007, at 8:37 AM, Patrick
Durusau wrote:
John,
Thanks for the explanation!
That makes sense. It isn't going to
cost implementers to have the additional baggage and as you say, it may
make it more attractive to the machine reasoning folks.
I don't see any problem with it
appearing in the final version that makes it into this version.
BTW, working on the opening keynote for
the conference in the Netherlands and have settled on using the work of
Grotius (a native of the Netherlands) on open seas to make the same
arguments for open document formats, enabling commerce, etc. Should be
interesting to see how it comes out in the end.
A natural law argument that if users
own their documents (who else?) then they necessarily should have the
freedom to choose to process them with any application they prefer.
Following on from that, enabling that freedom of users means that there
will be more commerce and competition in applications to process those
documents.
Hope you are looking forward to a great
weekend!
Patrick
John F. Madden, MD, PhD wrote:
Patrick,
It's an entirely reasonable question
to ask why you would ever want to reason over them, and maybe you
wouldn't.
But the Semantic Web principle is
that you never know how somebody might want to reuse the information
you post in unanticipated ways. And if you define your concepts well,
then your ontology is going to be "better liked" by people, more apt to
be reused, and people are hence more likely to adopt your ontology.
There is a trade-off, of course. If
you put *too* much detail in, then conversely people might dislike your
concepts because they are *too* tight, *too* context-dependent, *too*
tied to their origins and for this reason unfriendly for re-use.
So that, I think, is the art of the
Semantic Web. I think if we put in a few modest, uncontroversial
disjoints, and if we state the obvious domain/range constraints, then
that, in my opinion, is a net plus.
Incidentally, in my experience there
are two kinds of semantic webbers. There is one group that wants to use
semantic web just to support searching; there is another group that
wants to use it to support machine reasoning.
The search people basically just want
concept linkages connected up in a big network, so that their search
engines can walk through the link networks and harvest potentially
relevant facts and documents along the way. These people do not care
much about disjoints, domains and ranges. They tend to be happy with
pure RDF, and they don't find any advantage to using OWL.
But pure RDF has such a limited set
of built-in logical constraints that pure RDF reasoners are extremely
puny, capable of very little useful inferencing. So the machine
reasoning people, who don't care so much about searching, but instead
want to extract inferences from a pre-harvested set of facts, prefer
OWL over straight RDF. And accordingly they like to be much more
explicit and detailed in their class and property definitions, in ways
which are only possible under OWL.
Like I say, the art of the thing is
to try and satisfy both constituencies.
John
On Oct 11, 2007, at 4:57 PM, Patrick
Durusau wrote:
John,
John F. Madden, MD, PhD wrote:
Patrick --
Exciting news about your upcoming
talk. I'm going to send you separately my wonderful (if I do say so
myself) example from my September conference, which is an ODF doc that
uses XForms, and generates an RDF/OWL representation of the form
content to be reposited as ODF metadata.
I'll also send you my slides that
you are welcome to use. Do you happen to use a Mac (my presentation
works best in Mac Keynote, but I can make it into a PowerPoint if
that's what you use).
Great!
Powerpoint as I am not on a Mac.
w.r.t. the other issues:
While cleaner from an ontology
design perspective, what ability do we gain from the disjointedness
axioms? While I don't disagree that they are pretty obvious, I am not
sure what adding the axioms would mean in terms of actual processing.
There may well be some real advantage that I am not seeing so please
understand this is truly a question and not opposition to your
suggestion.
The advantage is that if anyone
ever wants to perform reasoning on the information using an OWL
reasoner, then the reasoner has more information to work with and can
therefore make more (and
more accurate) inferences than would otherwise be possible.
Remember that an OWL reasoner
makes NO prior assumptions WHATSOEVER about disjointness of classes.
It's a common source of problems for neophyte users. They'll create
some elaborate ontology of, say, cats. They'll have subclasses Lions,
Tigers, Housecats, etc. But they won't explicitly state that these
classes are disjoint. Then they try to reason on the ontology and they
get all kind of crazy inferences, like that some Housecats live in the
jungle and eat villagers, and some adult tigers weigh under 3 pounds
and like to eat FancyFeast out of a can.
Even worse, if they have a class
Dogs and they don't explicit;y declare it disjoint from Cats. Or
---horrible to imagine -- Cars, Stars, FamousPhilosophers,
RockFormations, GastrointestinalDisorders, Cats and Dogs. Mama mia!
I've forgotten what I suggested
should be declared disjoint in the ODF ontology. Remind me.
Nothing all that remarkable:
Package, File and Element are all
mutually disjoint. ContentFile, MetadataFile and StylesFile are all
mutually disjoint.
What was puzzling me was why anyone
would use a reasoner over them? Granted you could, but it looks like
overkill to me.
Still, it doesn't cost us anything
so perhaps we should.
On the notion of domains and
ranges, is this a question of specifying what qualifies as legitimate
values? That is you want to declare what are acceptable values? For
validation purposes? Again, just not sure what this adds so asking for
more information.
This is similar to above. If you
don't declare domains and ranges, then an OWL reasoner will assume that
the subject and object of the value can be members of any class.
Actually, in OWL, the "meaning"
of a property -- for purposes of automated reasoning -- is entirely
defined by its domain and range restrictions (and by its subPropertyOf
relationships).
So say you have a property
hasHairColor in your ontology, but you don't declare domains and ranges
explicitly. Then an OWL reasoner might come up with a "true" inference,
given appropriate starting facts, that John'sTelephone hasHairColor
Patrick'sEyeglasses.
Obviously, the reasoner doesn't
"understand" the "meaning" of the property. You have to have told it
explicitly that the hasHairColor property has a domain of things in the
class People, and a range of things in the class PossibleHairColors.
Then it will only generate inferences that are valid for the property
used as intended.
Ah, ok, now I understand.
Thanks!
Hope you are having a great day!
Patrick
John
--
Patrick Durusau
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Acting Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3
(Topic Maps)
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5
(Topic Maps)
Co-Editor, OpenDocument Format
(OASIS, ISO/IEC 26300)
--
Patrick Durusau
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Acting Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3
(Topic Maps)
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5
(Topic Maps)
Co-Editor, OpenDocument Format (OASIS,
ISO/IEC 26300)
|