From martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org Tue Mar 1 19:13:30 2011 From: martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org (Martin Hepp) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 19:13:30 +0100 Subject: [goodrelations] ANN: http://www.productontology.org - more than 300, 000 specific OWL DL classes for types of objects Message-ID: <104CB831-29AC-4481-A835-1681E68C611C@ebusiness-unibw.org> Dear all: We are happy to release http://www.productontology.org, an online-service that provides valid OWL DL class definitions for all of the ca. 300,000 types of products or services that are contained in the 3.5 million Wikipedia entries. In short, www.productontology.org provides for the schema level what DBpedia provides for the data / instance level of the Semantic Web. A few examples: Laser_printer http://www.productontology.org/id/Laser_printer Manure_spreader http://www.productontology.org/id/Manure_spreader Racing_bicycle http://www.productontology.org/id/Racing_bicycle Soldering_iron http://www.productontology.org/id/Soldering_iron Sweet_potato http://www.productontology.org/id/Sweet_potato The Product Ontology is designed to be compatible with the GoodRelations Ontology for e-commerce, but it can be used for any other Semantic Web or Linked Data purpose that requires class definitions for objects. All Wikipedia translations are preserved. Background informations and FAQs: http://www.productontology.org/#faq Examples in RDF/XML, Turtle, and RDFa: http://www.productontology.org/#examples Any feedback is highly appreciated! Acknowledgments: Thanks to Axel Polleres, Andreas Radinger, Alex Stolz, and Giovanni Tummarello for very valuable feedback. The work on The Product Types Ontology has been supported by the German Federal Ministry of Research (BMBF) by a grant under the KMU Innovativ program as part of the Intelligent Match project (FKZ 01IS10022B). -------------------------------------------------------- martin hepp e-business & web science research group universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen e-mail: hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) skype: mfhepp twitter: mfhepp From liebig at derivo.de Thu Mar 3 12:11:16 2011 From: liebig at derivo.de (Thorsten Liebig) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 12:11:16 +0100 Subject: [goodrelations] ANN: SPARQL-DL query engine for the OWL API Message-ID: <4D6F7754.6040408@derivo.de> We are happy to announce the initial release of our SPARQL-DL query engine that is settled on top of the OWL API. The library is aligned with the OWL 2 standard and adds a SPARQL-DL interface to every OWL API 3 reasoner. Release 1.0.0 and accompanying documentation can be found at: http://www.derivo.de/en/resources/sparql-dl-api/ Best, The RDF/OWL team at derivo -- Dr. Thorsten Liebig Phone +49 731 502 4207 mailto:liebig at derivo.de derivo GmbH James-Franck-Ring, 89081 Ulm, Germany Amtsgericht Ulm, HRB 725444 CEO: Dr. Thorsten Liebig From ltorokjr at gmail.com Tue Mar 8 11:12:10 2011 From: ltorokjr at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?B?TOFzemzzIFT2cvZr?=) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 11:12:10 +0100 Subject: [goodrelations] What parts of Goodrelations are implemented by major search engines? Message-ID: Hi, I was going over the GoodRelations wiki in the last too days, a very comprehensive work even if some of it is still WIP. The wiki is well formulated, I did not have any issues with understanding the concepts and methods described there. However, there is one important missing page that is essential for adopters on the data provider side IMHO. Considering the compelling use case of semantic SEO and increased visibility via marking up the products and services with GoodRelations, I cannot currently tell, what part of the GoodRelations vocabulary is supported by major search engines (Yahoo, Google). I found the links to Google Rich Snippets and Yahoo Searchmonkey, however, I am still missing something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(HTML_5). It is clear that there is a chicken-and-egg problem with respect to who should implement support first. (data providers or data consumers). Therefore, I am sure there will be arguments, that the more data providers implement, the higher the incentive for search engines to support it. However, if I am running an e-commerce site even as small as simple web shop running on a shared server, I want to be able to assess the return on investment that goes into the semantic markup. Has this concern been raised previously? Many thanks, Laszlo T?r?k -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aaranged at yahoo.com Tue Mar 8 15:59:53 2011 From: aaranged at yahoo.com (Aaron Bradley) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 06:59:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [goodrelations] What parts of Goodrelations are implemented by major search engines? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <824494.68161.qm@web33101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> GoodRelations is one of the markup formats supported by Google to produce rich snippets in search engine results pages. Rich snippets are described in broad terms here: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2010/11/rich-snippets-for-shopping-sites.html And by this suite of Google reference pages: http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/topic.py?topic=21997 This related Google page contains a product properties table comparing hProduct, GoodRelations, Google Product format and Google Merchant Center feed properties : http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=186036 That sort of answers "what part" of GoodRelations is currently supported by Google, insofar as I understand that question. Namely product-related information that appears in rich snippets. To the best of my knowledge the gr:BusinessEntity is not used, say, to produce localized geo-targeted listings (e.g., Google Map pins), but I could be wrong and would welcome any evidence to the contrary (as I think it would be a sensible use of these data by Google). Bing has yet to formally support any structured product data, but I would be very surprised if this continues indefinitely. As Yahoo results are now powered by Bing, Yahoo's legacy support of GoodRelations may mean that enhanced product information appears there: http://ebusiness-unibw.org/pipermail/goodrelations/2010-August/000245.html More generally in terms of ROI, I'd offer the opinion that structured product markup to better inform the search engines and enhance search results is here to stay - so I think an investment in GoodRelations is a safe one. And for any merchant that sells products online, there's not a lot of additional technical overhead involved in producing GoodRelations markup for those already producing a Google Merchant Center feed (where the investment for the latter is, perhaps, easier to justify, as it is required to turn up in Google shopping results). As an aside, have you ever considered a forum Martin? 1. What parts of Goodrelations are implemented by major search engines? (L?szl? T?r?k) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 11:12:10 +0100 From: L?szl? T?r?k Subject: [goodrelations] What parts of Goodrelations are implemented by major search engines? To: goodrelations at ebusiness-unibw.org Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi, I was going over the GoodRelations wiki in the last too days, a very comprehensive work even if some of it is still WIP. The wiki is well formulated, I did not have any issues with understanding the concepts and methods described there. However, there is one important missing page that is essential for adopters on the data provider side IMHO. Considering the compelling use case of semantic SEO and increased visibility via marking up the products and services with GoodRelations, I cannot currently tell, what part of the GoodRelations vocabulary is supported by major search engines (Yahoo, Google). I found the links to Google Rich Snippets and Yahoo Searchmonkey, however, I am still missing something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(HTML_5). It is clear that there is a chicken-and-egg problem with respect to who should implement support first. (data providers or data consumers). Therefore, I am sure there will be arguments, that the more data providers implement, the higher the incentive for search engines to support it. However, if I am running an e-commerce site even as small as simple web shop running on a shared server, I want to be able to assess the return on investment that goes into the semantic markup. Has this concern been raised previously? Many thanks, Laszlo T?r?k -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jamshaid.ashraf at gmail.com Wed Mar 9 01:45:17 2011 From: jamshaid.ashraf at gmail.com (Jamshaid Ashraf) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:45:17 +0800 Subject: [goodrelations] What parts of Goodrelations are implemented by major search engines? In-Reply-To: <824494.68161.qm@web33101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <824494.68161.qm@web33101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi, In one of our recent study we analyzed the current implemented instance data, marked with GR Ontology and will be available shortly. Regarding "What Part" of ontology terms recognized (or indexed) by search engines (Google and Yahoo!) follows: "Our investigation found that Yahoo and Google currently includes price, availability (Google only), description and product pictures drawn from GRO annotated structured data as part of their enhanced search results" The above data elements are what get displayed to user but to what extend search engines extract and store in their database is not know yet. Best guess is that they extract maximum set of structured data from webpages and will use in future when, relevent information is helpful to improve search result such as Product ontology Regards jamshaid On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Aaron Bradley wrote: > GoodRelations is one of the markup formats supported by Google to produce > rich snippets in search engine results pages. > > Rich snippets are described in broad terms here: > > http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2010/11/rich-snippets-for-shopping-sites.html > And by this suite of Google reference pages: > http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/topic.py?topic=21997 > > This related Google page contains a product properties table comparing > hProduct, GoodRelations, Google Product format and Google Merchant Center > feed properties : > http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=186036 > > That sort of answers "what part" of GoodRelations is currently supported by > Google, insofar as I understand that question. Namely product-related > information that appears in rich snippets. To the best of my knowledge the > gr:BusinessEntity is not used, say, to produce localized geo-targeted > listings (e.g., Google Map pins), but I could be wrong and would welcome any > evidence to the contrary (as I think it would be a sensible use of these > data by Google). > > Bing has yet to formally support any structured product data, but I would > be very surprised if this continues indefinitely. As Yahoo results are now > powered by Bing, Yahoo's legacy support of GoodRelations may mean that > enhanced product information appears there: > http://ebusiness-unibw.org/pipermail/goodrelations/2010-August/000245.html > > More generally in terms of ROI, I'd offer the opinion that structured > product markup to better inform the search engines and enhance search > results is here to stay - so I think an investment in GoodRelations is a > safe one. And for any merchant that sells products online, there's not a > lot of additional technical overhead involved in producing GoodRelations > markup for those already producing a Google Merchant Center feed (where the > investment for the latter is, perhaps, easier to justify, as it is required > to turn up in Google shopping results). > > As an aside, have you ever considered a forum Martin? > > > 1. What parts of Goodrelations are implemented by major search > engines? (L?szl? T?r?k) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 11:12:10 +0100 > From: L?szl? T?r?k > Subject: [goodrelations] What parts of Goodrelations are implemented > by major search engines? > To: goodrelations at ebusiness-unibw.org > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > Hi, > > I was going over the GoodRelations wiki in the last too days, a very > comprehensive work even if some of it is still WIP. > The wiki is well formulated, I did not have any issues with understanding > the concepts and methods described there. > > However, there is one important missing page that is essential for adopters > on the data provider side IMHO. > Considering the compelling use case of semantic SEO and increased > visibility > via marking up the products and services with GoodRelations, I cannot > currently tell, what part of the GoodRelations vocabulary is supported by > major search engines (Yahoo, Google). I found the links to Google Rich > Snippets and Yahoo Searchmonkey, however, I am still missing something like > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(HTML_5). > > It is clear that there is a chicken-and-egg problem with respect to who > should implement support first. (data providers or data consumers). > Therefore, I am sure there will be arguments, that the more data providers > implement, the higher the incentive for search engines to support it. > > However, if I am running an e-commerce site even as small as simple web > shop > running on a shared server, I want to be able to assess the return on > investment that goes into the semantic markup. > > Has this concern been raised previously? > > Many thanks, > > Laszlo T?r?k > > > > _______________________________________________ > goodrelations mailing list > goodrelations at ebusiness-unibw.org > http://ebusiness-unibw.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goodrelations > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org Fri Mar 11 12:29:59 2011 From: martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org (Martin Hepp) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:29:59 +0100 Subject: [goodrelations] Modeling the type of product / offer References: <6EB4B1EA-80D5-42D8-9EAB-3283B9B4DA43@ebusiness-unibw.org> Message-ID: Dear all: Attached, please find my private reply to someone who was asking for how to model the type of products in an offer, e.g. how to indicate what types of products you are selling. I think it is of generic relevance. Begin forwarded message: ------------------------ The precise way of classifying offerings by what they include is to use *a taxonomy on the products* included. So since gr:Offerings may include very different objects (1 beer + 2 laptop computers), it is not very scalable to classify offers by content. Rather, classify the objects included. There are three ways for doing so: 1. Use an external GoodRelations specialization for a vertical (see list: http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations#Compatible_Vocabularies_for_Products_and_Services) and make the gr:ActualProductOrServiceInstance or the gr:ProductOrServicesSomeInstancesPlaceholder an instance of the matching class: Example for a Hammer and using the class from www.productontology.org: @prefix foaf: . @prefix xsd: . @prefix pto: . @prefix gr: . @prefix foo: . # The object foo:myObject a ; a gr:ProductOrServicesSomeInstancesPlaceholder ; gr:name "... a short name for the object ..."@en ; gr:description "... a longer description ..."@en . So you make it an instance of both pro:Hammer and gr:ProductOrServicesSomeInstancesPlaceholder. Then you need to model the offer and the company, as usual: # The agent (person or company) who is offering it foo:ACMECorp a gr:BusinessEntity ; gr:legalName "ACME Corp" ; gr:offers foo:Offer . # The offer to sell it foo:Offer a gr:Offering ; gr:includes foo:myObject; foaf:page ; gr:hasBusinessFunction gr:Sell ; gr:validFrom "2011-01-24T00:00:00+01:00"^^xsd:dateTime ; gr:validThrough "2011-12-24T00:00:00+01:00"^^xsd:dateTime ; gr:hasPriceSpecification [ a gr:UnitPriceSpecification ; gr:hasCurrency "USD"^^xsd:string ; gr:hasCurrencyValue "19.99"^^xsd:float ; gr:validThrough "2011-12-24T00:00:00+01:00"^^xsd:dateTime ] . 2. As 1, but you define a proprietary ontology for your types of goods, as described in http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations#Creating_New_Vocabularies_for_Products_and_Services So you would define classes and maybe properties that match your internal data structures: foo:Hammer a owl:Class; rdfs:subClass of gr:ProductOrService . The you do the same as in option 1: # The object foo:myObject a foo:Hammer, a gr:ProductOrServicesSomeInstancesPlaceholder ; gr:name "... a short name for the object ..."@en ; gr:description "... a longer description ..."@en . 3. If you just have a label for the category and don't want to create an ontology, you can also use gr:category with a literal. Advantage: Much simpler Disadvantage: Harder to process by clients, thus lower visibility (but future engines can still try to build links based on string similarity). The you do the same as in option 1: # The object foo:myObject a a gr:ProductOrServicesSomeInstancesPlaceholder ; gr:category "Hammer"@en ; gr:name "... a short name for the object ..."@en ; gr:description "... a longer description ..."@en . If you absolutely want to attach the information to the offer, you could use foaf:topic or create your own subclasses of gr:Offering, but I would discourage that because - it won't scale - most clients will ignore that - it's much harder to model alignments. Best Martin Hepp From martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org Tue Mar 15 21:01:59 2011 From: martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org (Martin Hepp) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:01:59 +0100 Subject: [goodrelations] Interesting new blogpost by Jay Myers from BestBuy Message-ID: <678E40BF-3260-4596-8856-FBC5AC71A652@ebusiness-unibw.org> Dear all: BestBuy has just started a new phase of GoodRelations adoption: http://jay.beweep.com/2011/03/15/smarter-check-availability-rdfa/ Best Martin Hepp From martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org Wed Mar 16 12:24:25 2011 From: martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org (Martin Hepp) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:24:25 +0100 Subject: [goodrelations] Facebook Open Graph and http://www.productontology.org In-Reply-To: <5D0C2AC7-2F80-466C-BC5F-750A0881E281@ebusiness-unibw.org> References: <5D0C2AC7-2F80-466C-BC5F-750A0881E281@ebusiness-unibw.org> Message-ID: <3AF7CF54-0F3B-43FE-9C42-5C9D68BDA320@ebusiness-unibw.org> Hi all: A simple yet powerful usage of this service with the OGP may be to accept the CURIEs (compact URIs) of www.productontology.org as literal values for ogp:type, e.g. This would give Facebook unprecedented precision without the need to maintain the type identifiers, plus up to 100 translations for the types. Full example for http://www.shopping.hp.com/product/printer/Photosmart/1/storefronts/CN731A%2523B1H The Rock (1996) ... ... Best Martin On Mar 1, 2011, at 7:21 PM, Martin Hepp wrote: > Dear all: > > We are happy to release http://www.productontology.org, an online-service > that provides class definitions for all of the ca. 300,000 types > of products or services that are contained in the 3.5 million Wikipedia entries. > > This can be used in combination with the OGP if you add GoodRelations > (http://purl.org/goodrelations/) markup in RDFa to the body of your page. > > In short, www.productontology.org provides for the schema level what DBpedia > provides for the data / instance level of the Semantic Web. > > A few examples: > > Laser_printer http://www.productontology.org/id/Laser_printer > Manure_spreader http://www.productontology.org/id/Manure_spreader > Racing_bicycle http://www.productontology.org/id/Racing_bicycle > Soldering_iron http://www.productontology.org/id/Soldering_iron > Sweet_potato http://www.productontology.org/id/Sweet_potato > > The Product Ontology is designed to be compatible with the GoodRelations > Ontology for e-commerce, but it can be used for any other purpose that requires > class definitions for specific objects. > > All Wikipedia translations are preserved, so you have up to 100 translations per label. > > It would be worthwhile to think about how this can be used directly within the > OGP for identifying more specific types of page content. > > > Background informations and FAQs: > http://www.productontology.org/#faq > > Examples in RDF/XML, Turtle, and RDFa: > http://www.productontology.org/#examples > > Any feedback is highly appreciated! > > Acknowledgments: Thanks to Axel Polleres, Andreas Radinger, Alex Stolz, and > Giovanni Tummarello for very valuable feedback. > > The work on The Product Types Ontology has been supported by the German Federal > Ministry of Research (BMBF) by a grant under the KMU Innovativ program as part > of the Intelligent Match project (FKZ 01IS10022B). > > -------------------------------------------------------- > martin hepp > e-business & web science research group > universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen > > e-mail: hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org > phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 > fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 > www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) > http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) > skype: mfhepp > twitter: mfhepp > > From pt at fb.com Wed Mar 16 23:52:56 2011 From: pt at fb.com (Paul Tarjan) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 22:52:56 +0000 Subject: [goodrelations] Facebook Open Graph and http://www.productontology.org In-Reply-To: <3AF7CF54-0F3B-43FE-9C42-5C9D68BDA320@ebusiness-unibw.org> Message-ID: Great idea Martin! Yes, we do accept CURIEs as the og:type. Just make sure to declare your namespace on the page and you're good to go. Try passing your example into the linter and it should just work. Paul On 3/16/11 6:24 AM, "Martin Hepp" wrote: >Hi all: > >A simple yet powerful usage of this service with the OGP may be to accept >the CURIEs (compact URIs) of www.productontology.org as literal values >for ogp:type, e.g. > > > >This would give Facebook unprecedented precision without the need to >maintain the type identifiers, plus up to 100 translations for the types. > > >Full example for > > >http://www.shopping.hp.com/product/printer/Photosmart/1/storefronts/CN731A >%2523B1H > > > xmlns:og="http://ogp.me/ns#" > xmlns:fb="http://www.facebook.com/2008/fbml"> > > The Rock (1996) > > > content="http://www.shopping.hp.com/product/printer/Photosmart/1/storefron >ts/CN731A%2523B1H"/> > content="http://hpshopping.speedera.net/s7d2.scene7.com/is/image/HPShoppin >g/cn731a_main?$full3_fmt$"/> > > > content="Print lab-quality photos, everyday documents, and Web >content on the fly, without Using a PC. HP ePrint and integrated wireless >make it easy to share our Photosmart e-All-in-One?D110a with multiple PCs >and print from any room in your home."/> > ... > > ... > > >Best > >Martin > > >On Mar 1, 2011, at 7:21 PM, Martin Hepp wrote: > >> Dear all: >> >> We are happy to release http://www.productontology.org, an >>online-service >> that provides class definitions for all of the ca. 300,000 types >> of products or services that are contained in the 3.5 million Wikipedia >>entries. >> >> This can be used in combination with the OGP if you add GoodRelations >> (http://purl.org/goodrelations/) markup in RDFa to the body of your >>page. >> >> In short, www.productontology.org provides for the schema level what >>DBpedia >> provides for the data / instance level of the Semantic Web. >> >> A few examples: >> >> Laser_printer http://www.productontology.org/id/Laser_printer >> Manure_spreader http://www.productontology.org/id/Manure_spreader >> Racing_bicycle http://www.productontology.org/id/Racing_bicycle >> Soldering_iron http://www.productontology.org/id/Soldering_iron >> Sweet_potato http://www.productontology.org/id/Sweet_potato >> >> The Product Ontology is designed to be compatible with the >>GoodRelations >> Ontology for e-commerce, but it can be used for any other purpose that >>requires >> class definitions for specific objects. >> >> All Wikipedia translations are preserved, so you have up to 100 >>translations per label. >> >> It would be worthwhile to think about how this can be used directly >>within the >> OGP for identifying more specific types of page content. >> >> >> Background informations and FAQs: >> http://www.productontology.org/#faq >> >> Examples in RDF/XML, Turtle, and RDFa: >> http://www.productontology.org/#examples >> >> Any feedback is highly appreciated! >> >> Acknowledgments: Thanks to Axel Polleres, Andreas Radinger, Alex Stolz, >>and >> Giovanni Tummarello for very valuable feedback. >> >> The work on The Product Types Ontology has been supported by the German >>Federal >> Ministry of Research (BMBF) by a grant under the KMU Innovativ program >>as part >> of the Intelligent Match project (FKZ 01IS10022B). >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> martin hepp >> e-business & web science research group >> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen >> >> e-mail: hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org >> phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 >> fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 >> www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) >> http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) >> skype: mfhepp >> twitter: mfhepp >> >> > From martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org Thu Mar 17 15:24:45 2011 From: martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org (Martin Hepp) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 15:24:45 +0100 Subject: [goodrelations] Facebook Open Graph and http://www.productontology.org In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2090A88D-4350-4E3B-837F-D33CA0619C43@ebusiness-unibw.org> Hi Paul, On Mar 16, 2011, at 11:52 PM, Paul Tarjan wrote: > Great idea Martin! > > Yes, we do accept CURIEs as the og:type. Just make sure to declare your > namespace on the page and you're good to go. Great! Would you also tolerate TWO og:type statements? This would it make is easy to combine generic OGP types ("movie") with very specific ("Action film", "Educational film") ones so that the OGP data will be understood both by standard applications and such that honor additional specificity. Example: .... You would have 300 - 600,000 very specific types with labels in up to 80 languages, so you could easily display them with the proper category instead of "other". Martin > Try passing your example into > the linter and it should just work. > Will do. > Paul > > On 3/16/11 6:24 AM, "Martin Hepp" wrote: > >> Hi all: >> >> A simple yet powerful usage of this service with the OGP may be to accept >> the CURIEs (compact URIs) of www.productontology.org as literal values >> for ogp:type, e.g. >> >> >> >> This would give Facebook unprecedented precision without the need to >> maintain the type identifiers, plus up to 100 translations for the types. >> >> >> Full example for >> >> >> http://www.shopping.hp.com/product/printer/Photosmart/1/storefronts/CN731A >> %2523B1H >> >> >> > xmlns:og="http://ogp.me/ns#" >> xmlns:fb="http://www.facebook.com/2008/fbml"> >> >> The Rock (1996) >> >> >> > content="http://www.shopping.hp.com/product/printer/Photosmart/1/storefron >> ts/CN731A%2523B1H"/> >> > content="http://hpshopping.speedera.net/s7d2.scene7.com/is/image/HPShoppin >> g/cn731a_main?$full3_fmt$"/> >> >> >> > content="Print lab-quality photos, everyday documents, and Web >> content on the fly, without Using a PC. HP ePrint and integrated wireless >> make it easy to share our Photosmart e-All-in-One?D110a with multiple PCs >> and print from any room in your home."/> >> ... >> >> ... >> >> >> Best >> >> Martin >> >> >> On Mar 1, 2011, at 7:21 PM, Martin Hepp wrote: >> >>> Dear all: >>> >>> We are happy to release http://www.productontology.org, an >>> online-service >>> that provides class definitions for all of the ca. 300,000 types >>> of products or services that are contained in the 3.5 million Wikipedia >>> entries. >>> >>> This can be used in combination with the OGP if you add GoodRelations >>> (http://purl.org/goodrelations/) markup in RDFa to the body of your >>> page. >>> >>> In short, www.productontology.org provides for the schema level what >>> DBpedia >>> provides for the data / instance level of the Semantic Web. >>> >>> A few examples: >>> >>> Laser_printer http://www.productontology.org/id/Laser_printer >>> Manure_spreader http://www.productontology.org/id/Manure_spreader >>> Racing_bicycle http://www.productontology.org/id/Racing_bicycle >>> Soldering_iron http://www.productontology.org/id/Soldering_iron >>> Sweet_potato http://www.productontology.org/id/Sweet_potato >>> >>> The Product Ontology is designed to be compatible with the >>> GoodRelations >>> Ontology for e-commerce, but it can be used for any other purpose that >>> requires >>> class definitions for specific objects. >>> >>> All Wikipedia translations are preserved, so you have up to 100 >>> translations per label. >>> >>> It would be worthwhile to think about how this can be used directly >>> within the >>> OGP for identifying more specific types of page content. >>> >>> >>> Background informations and FAQs: >>> http://www.productontology.org/#faq >>> >>> Examples in RDF/XML, Turtle, and RDFa: >>> http://www.productontology.org/#examples >>> >>> Any feedback is highly appreciated! >>> >>> Acknowledgments: Thanks to Axel Polleres, Andreas Radinger, Alex Stolz, >>> and >>> Giovanni Tummarello for very valuable feedback. >>> >>> The work on The Product Types Ontology has been supported by the German >>> Federal >>> Ministry of Research (BMBF) by a grant under the KMU Innovativ program >>> as part >>> of the Intelligent Match project (FKZ 01IS10022B). >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------- >>> martin hepp >>> e-business & web science research group >>> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen >>> >>> e-mail: hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org >>> phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 >>> fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 >>> www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) >>> http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) >>> skype: mfhepp >>> twitter: mfhepp >>> >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > goodrelations mailing list > goodrelations at ebusiness-unibw.org > http://ebusiness-unibw.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goodrelations From martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org Thu Mar 17 15:45:54 2011 From: martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org (Martin Hepp) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 15:45:54 +0100 Subject: [goodrelations] Facebook Open Graph and http://www.productontology.org In-Reply-To: <2090A88D-4350-4E3B-837F-D33CA0619C43@ebusiness-unibw.org> References: <2090A88D-4350-4E3B-837F-D33CA0619C43@ebusiness-unibw.org> Message-ID: Hi Paul, I just created two pages http://www.heppnetz.de/facebook-pto1.html (with ONE ogp:type statement from www.productontology.org) and http://www.heppnetz.de/facebook-pto2.html (with TWO ogp:type statements, ogp:type="product" and ogp:type="Laser_printer" from www.productontology.org) Linter does not like two ogp:type statements :-( ("Warning: Duplicate tags -You used "type" multiple times, but it should only appear once") Are there any downsides of using ONLY ogp:type="pto:xyz" and omitting ogp:type="product"? For more powerful Facebook applications, it would be really, really good if site-owners added specific PTO types. On the other hand I fear that many may not want to omit ogp:type="product", since standard applications may then not discover that the page covers a product. Or am I wrong and you can recommend using PTO types without hesitation? Martin PS: Attached is the demo markup: HP Photosmart e-All-in-One Printer - D110a (OGP + GoodRelations) Demo page for combining Facebook Open Graph Protocol with http://www.productontology.org Print lab-quality photos, everyday documents, and Web content on the fly, without Using a PC. HP ePrint and integrated wireless make it easy to share our Photosmart e-All-in-One?D110a with multiple PCs and print from any room in your home. On Mar 17, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Martin Hepp wrote: > Hi Paul, > On Mar 16, 2011, at 11:52 PM, Paul Tarjan wrote: > >> Great idea Martin! >> >> Yes, we do accept CURIEs as the og:type. Just make sure to declare your >> namespace on the page and you're good to go. > > Great! > > Would you also tolerate TWO og:type statements? This would it make is easy to combine generic OGP types ("movie") with very specific ("Action film", "Educational film") ones so that the OGP data will be understood both by standard applications and such that honor additional specificity. > > Example: > > xmlns:pto="http://www.productontology.org/id/" > > > .... > > > > You would have 300 - 600,000 very specific types with labels in up to 80 languages, so you could easily display them with the proper category instead of "other". > > > Martin > >> Try passing your example into >> the linter and it should just work. >> > Will do. > >> Paul >> >> On 3/16/11 6:24 AM, "Martin Hepp" wrote: >> >>> Hi all: >>> >>> A simple yet powerful usage of this service with the OGP may be to accept >>> the CURIEs (compact URIs) of www.productontology.org as literal values >>> for ogp:type, e.g. >>> >>> >>> >>> This would give Facebook unprecedented precision without the need to >>> maintain the type identifiers, plus up to 100 translations for the types. >>> >>> >>> Full example for >>> >>> >>> http://www.shopping.hp.com/product/printer/Photosmart/1/storefronts/CN731A >>> %2523B1H >>> >>> >>> >> xmlns:og="http://ogp.me/ns#" >>> xmlns:fb="http://www.facebook.com/2008/fbml"> >>> >>> The Rock (1996) >>> >>> >>> >> content="http://www.shopping.hp.com/product/printer/Photosmart/1/storefron >>> ts/CN731A%2523B1H"/> >>> >> content="http://hpshopping.speedera.net/s7d2.scene7.com/is/image/HPShoppin >>> g/cn731a_main?$full3_fmt$"/> >>> >>> >>> >> content="Print lab-quality photos, everyday documents, and Web >>> content on the fly, without Using a PC. HP ePrint and integrated wireless >>> make it easy to share our Photosmart e-All-in-One?D110a with multiple PCs >>> and print from any room in your home."/> >>> ... >>> >>> ... >>> >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> On Mar 1, 2011, at 7:21 PM, Martin Hepp wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all: >>>> >>>> We are happy to release http://www.productontology.org, an >>>> online-service >>>> that provides class definitions for all of the ca. 300,000 types >>>> of products or services that are contained in the 3.5 million Wikipedia >>>> entries. >>>> >>>> This can be used in combination with the OGP if you add GoodRelations >>>> (http://purl.org/goodrelations/) markup in RDFa to the body of your >>>> page. >>>> >>>> In short, www.productontology.org provides for the schema level what >>>> DBpedia >>>> provides for the data / instance level of the Semantic Web. >>>> >>>> A few examples: >>>> >>>> Laser_printer http://www.productontology.org/id/Laser_printer >>>> Manure_spreader http://www.productontology.org/id/Manure_spreader >>>> Racing_bicycle http://www.productontology.org/id/Racing_bicycle >>>> Soldering_iron http://www.productontology.org/id/Soldering_iron >>>> Sweet_potato http://www.productontology.org/id/Sweet_potato >>>> >>>> The Product Ontology is designed to be compatible with the >>>> GoodRelations >>>> Ontology for e-commerce, but it can be used for any other purpose that >>>> requires >>>> class definitions for specific objects. >>>> >>>> All Wikipedia translations are preserved, so you have up to 100 >>>> translations per label. >>>> >>>> It would be worthwhile to think about how this can be used directly >>>> within the >>>> OGP for identifying more specific types of page content. >>>> >>>> >>>> Background informations and FAQs: >>>> http://www.productontology.org/#faq >>>> >>>> Examples in RDF/XML, Turtle, and RDFa: >>>> http://www.productontology.org/#examples >>>> >>>> Any feedback is highly appreciated! >>>> >>>> Acknowledgments: Thanks to Axel Polleres, Andreas Radinger, Alex Stolz, >>>> and >>>> Giovanni Tummarello for very valuable feedback. >>>> >>>> The work on The Product Types Ontology has been supported by the German >>>> Federal >>>> Ministry of Research (BMBF) by a grant under the KMU Innovativ program >>>> as part >>>> of the Intelligent Match project (FKZ 01IS10022B). >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------- >>>> martin hepp >>>> e-business & web science research group >>>> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen >>>> >>>> e-mail: hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org >>>> phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 >>>> fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 >>>> www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) >>>> http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) >>>> skype: mfhepp >>>> twitter: mfhepp >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> goodrelations mailing list >> goodrelations at ebusiness-unibw.org >> http://ebusiness-unibw.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goodrelations > > > _______________________________________________ > goodrelations mailing list > goodrelations at ebusiness-unibw.org > http://ebusiness-unibw.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goodrelations From martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org Thu Mar 17 20:12:03 2011 From: martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org (Martin Hepp) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 20:12:03 +0100 Subject: [goodrelations] Defaults, Prototypes, Individuals in OWL - was: Re: FRBR and classes ('frbr:Works in the age of mechanical reproduction'...) Message-ID: <2A88A624-1C06-4780-8D0E-B909067E3346@ebusiness-unibw.org> Hi Dan, Thanks for the interesting points, which I found only by accident. Just FYI: Both http://www.productontology.org and GoodRelations (http://purl.org/goodrelations) try to cater for the need of modeling classes, individuals, and prototypes in an OWL DL world. This happens by using a) three subclasses of gr:ProductOrService: - one for actual, identifiable individuals (gr:ActualProductOrServiceInstance) - one for bags of anonymous individuals (gr:ProductOrServicesSomeInstancesPlaceholder) - one for prototypes that define default attributes of individuals (gr:ProductOrServiceModel) b) a link between the prototypes and individuals (gr:hasMakeAndModel) So you can use common abstractions (e.g. pto:Laser_printer) for all of them while being able to keep them apart when needed by using the intersection of one of the three classes with the respective generic abstraction: foo:MyLaserPrinter a pto:Laser_printer, gr:ActualProductOrServiceInstance ; gr:serialNumber "123445X233"^^xsd:string . foo:ProtypeForALaserprinter a pto:Laser_printer, gr:ProductOrServiceModel ; color "black" . Now, if we know that foo:ProtypeForALaserprinter is the prototype for foo:MyLaserPrinter via foo:MyLaserPrinter gr:hasMakeAndModel foo:ProtypeForALaserprinter . we can infer that it will have the color "black", unless we have information about the specific color of foo:MyLaserPrinter. The actual reasoning for the defaults is beyond OWL DL, but can be well modeled e.g. in SPARQL CONSTRUCT rules: (from http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelationsOptionalAxiomsAndLinks#Product_Models): # Products inherit all product features from their product models unless they are defined for the products individually CONSTRUCT {?product ?property ?valueModel.} WHERE { { {?product a gr:ActualProductOrServiceInstance.} UNION {?product a gr:ProductOrServicesSomeInstancesPlaceholder.} } ?model a gr:ProductOrServiceModel. ?product gr:hasMakeAndModel ?model. ?model ?property ?valueModel. { {?property rdfs:subPropertyOf gr:qualitativeProductOrServiceProperty.} UNION {?property rdfs:subPropertyOf gr:quantitativeProductOrServiceProperty.} UNION {?property rdfs:subPropertyOf gr:datatypeProductOrServiceProperty.} } OPTIONAL {?product ?property ?valueProduct.} FILTER (!bound(?valueProduct)) } So if foo:MyLaserPrinter does not have a gr:color property, the rule will add foo:MyLaserPrinter gr:color "black" . Otherwise, it will preserve the local value. Quite clearly, an RDF dataspace can only do this once the set of relevant triples is defined; no true OWA. While this was initially designed for the pretty narrow case of commodities and their datasheets, it can also be used for other pairs of individuals and prototypes, e.g. a composition and its performance (think of the duration of a piece of piano music). Also, the common abstraction for both may differ (e.g. the prototype could be a foo:Oil_painting and the individual a foo:Picture) or be pretty broad (e.g. foo:DVD). Martin (thinking-out-loud alert) So this is a conversation that resurfaces over the years in various ways. My latest prompt being a combination of (i) seeing http://www.productontology.org/ which declares OWL DL classes (ie. classes of thing, aka types...) for commonly named products, using Wikipedia data. The product ontology site uses OWL to describe classes of largely mass-produced thing: "This service provides GoodRelations-compatible OWL DL class definitions for ca. 300,000 types of product or services that have an entry in the English Wikipedia, e.g. http://www.productontology.org/doc/Apple http://www.productontology.org/doc/Laser_printer http://www.productontology.org/doc/Manure_spreader http://www.productontology.org/doc/Racing_bicycle http://www.productontology.org/doc/Soldering_iron http://www.productontology.org/doc/Sweet_potato Back at DC-2008 in Berlin someone (maybe Karen Coyle or Diane Hillman) mentioned that a difference between libraries and museums is that the works collected by the former are mass produced. I think we can go some way towards webbifying FRBR by pondering that observation. I spent monday and tuesday with VU.nl colleagues visiting the Amsterdam Museum and then the Fab Lab at http://fablab.waag.org/ which showed some possibilities for taking museum artifacts and replicating lossy copies of them (with 3d printers and other mechanical reproduction techniques). We could even fabricate moulds derrived from artifacts that allow others to create new derrived instances (or their own moulds). Each generation derriving characteristics from the previous, and adding in its own flaws and innovations. Looking at the Product Ontology examples above, they work better at describing mechanically reproduced, near-identical artifacts - Laser_printer, Soldering_Iron than with the natural kinds of thing - apple, potato etc. Both apple and sweet potato are halfway to being mass nouns --- you might often have need to describe 'some' apple or sweet-potato, rather than 'a' sweet potato, although of course you can have a specific apple or potato in-hand. Mass production brings with it the prospect of thousands of *near*-identical instances of some type, as well as associating those with codes and lately URLs that link us back to information about the recipe or ingredients list for those types of thing. For complex modern mass produced items, if you know what kind of item it is, you know a huge amount about that thing - whether it is a book or a printer or a soldering iron. If we forget the library and cultural heritage scene for now, and think just about these product types: I have here in my room a specific laser printer. It is an HP Laser Smart C4270. Let's say it was bought in Leiden, Netherlands and has an owner (this household). It has specific characteristics local to this copy, as well as stereotypical characteristics that it shares with all other "HP Laser Smart C4270s". FRBR isn't designed to describe that kind of situation (although the parallels should be clear). But RDF and OWL do try to address that general case: RDF/RDFS/OWL is very much in the business of drawing such class-instance distinctions. OWL also goes some basic way towards providing information-machinery for stating generalisations about all the members of some class of thing. However OWL itself avoids certain complex topics that are relatively hard to avoid for us: it does not directly give us a way of saying '"typically". It does not give us a way of distinguishing intrinsic versus accidental properties. The latter saved W3C from retreading thousands of years of philosophical debate. The former is perhaps a medium-sized nuisance. Regardless: We can think of the class of things in the world that are *printers*. We can name that class with a URI and publish a description there. We can think of the class of things in the world that are *laser printers*. We can name that class with a URI and publish a description there. We can think of the class of things in the world that are *HP laser printers*. We can name that class with a URI and publish a description there. We can think of the class of things in the world that are *HP Laser Smart C4270 printers*. We can name that class with a URI and publish a description there. We can associate any thing in the world with one of more of these classes; in RDF by asserting an rdf:type relationship to the class. We can use properties associated with the class to describe the individual thing 'by hand', or we can draw factual conclusions about properties of some individual from general knowledge that makes claims about all members of a class. We can go deeper, towards query-like classes, and name the sub-class of HPLaserSmartC4270-Printer that corresponds to such printers bought in Leiden; or owned by me. Or that have a damaged scanner lid and which still serve adequately as a printer. Or which belong to the subclass manufactured in the UK and that shipped with a UK-compatible power cable. OWL doesn't impose any appropriate level of detail on us, it just provides descriptive primitives that let us talk in terms of [broadly] sets of things, the properties that characterise those sets, and the subset / superset relations between those sets. (We say class instead of set, and leave that distinction aside for now.) Computerised ontology languages like OWL are obsessed with this class-vs-instance distinction, and in modern mass produced life, the distinction is all around us, as are near-identical, mechanically reproduced copies of products - regardless of whether the product was designed to inform, educate, entertain, or remove unsightly nasal hair. Our FRBR-inspired conversations here are outshadowed by the need to make equivalent distinctions in other aspects of everyday life. From tracking down a replacement cable or scanner lid for my printer, to finding the nearest open shop that will sell me a certain kind of soldering iron on a sunday, or a certain DVD of a certain film, the desire to organize information in a way that mirrors the patterns of similarity amongst mass produced items is a modern universal. >From http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_Mechanical_Reproduction and unfairly out of context, "In principle a work of art has always been reproducible. Man-made artifacts could always be imitated by men. Replicas were made by pupils in practice of their craft, by masters for diffusing their works, and, finally, by third parties in the pursuit of gain. Mechanical reproduction of a work of art, however, represents something new." [...] "With the woodcut graphic art became mechanically reproducible for the first time, long before script became reproducible by print. The enormous changes which printing, the mechanical reproduction of writing, has brought about in literature are a familiar story. However, within the phenomenon which we are here examining from the perspective of world history, print is merely a special, though particularly important, case." All I'm suggesting here is that we follow this advice from Walter Benjamin in 1936 and indulge ourselves in the idea that modeling bibliographic mass production is merely a special (and important) case. FRBR's "items" are the most concrete, tangible entities in the FRBR universe. In the physical realm they are things you might hold in your hand, put in a box, find at some location. The idea extended to the digital realm is naturally more ephemeral but we do at least have correspondingly objective characterstics that ground digital objects in clear ways: notions such as sizeInBytes, cryptographic hashes (sha1sum, md5) can be used to talk precisely about specific sequences of 'Zeros' and 'Ones'. Looking up the FRBR hierarchy at the more general notions of "Manifestation", "Expression" and "Work", these are FRBR's particular story for organizing our millions of items into sensible groups. FRBR's "work" notion is described textually as a ?distinct intellectual or artistic creation.?... a kind of ghostly but specific entity, a kind of social fiction that acts as a descriptive (and sometimes legal) hub for organizing clusters of related items. "Expression" brings that somewhat down to earth (?the specific intellectual or artistic form that a work takes each time it is ?realized.??), while "Manifestion" finally articulates it in terms sets/classes rather than individual abstract entities: " ?the physical embodiment of an expression of a work. As an entity, manifestation represents all the physical objects that bear the same characteristics, in respect to both intellectual content and physical form.?". So the distinctions made in terms of these *4* notions are similar to those baked into the core of RDF itself.... specific fairly concrete things organized into groups (sets, classes). RDF only allows itself 'rdf:type' and 'rdfs:subClassOf' relationships as a basis to describe all this. So if we go with this idea that "print is merely a special, though particularly important, case" of mass produced work, and that is it worth investigating RDF descriptive habits that address characteristics of mass production regardless of whether we are talking about bicycles, books, laser printers or farmyard equipment, ... where does this leave us? where does it get us? 1. We bring more clearly into scope some industrialised areas of cultural 'content' -- music, tv, films; http://musicontology.com/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/ontologies/programmes/2009-09-07.shtml ... areas where FRBR is a close but not perfect fit, and class-based models drift towards being 'FRBR-inspired' rather than 'FRBR-based'. 2. We find OWL lacks certain conventions for distinguishing stereotypical instances from flawed/accidental characteristics of actual instances. For eg. a copy of a some book I have on my desk might be missing a certain page, so its literal 'number of pages' property couldn't be inferred from a common class shared with other such manifestations of the same abstraction. Or the local adjustments made here to my printer (I swapped the power cable, or repaired the lid). There is a big literature in KR about defaults and overrides and it's tricky to get right with open-world design of RDF/OWL/RDFS. 3. Works, Manifestations and Expressions might all just be kinds of classes; or annotations on classes. The class of *HP Laser Smart C4270 printers* of which I have one in this room; the class of *SQL and Relational Theory books* of which I have one on my desk as I type. The former is described at http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/product?cc=us&lc=en&dlc=en&product=3300222 by its maker; the latter at http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596523084 ... more general classes might be tagged 'work-class'; very precise classes tagged 'manifestation-class'. But fundamentally we get a huge, universal spectrum (from the class of 'every Thing', to the class of 'No-thing') rather than forcing each into one of the FRBR 4. In both these example cases, there are product codes and online databases, and other people who own different instances of the same kind of thing. In both cases there are related products (maybe an ebook, maybe a successor printer design, or ink cartridge) where information at the level of 'all products' is useful to the owners and custodians of specific products. 4. OWL 2.0's punning mechanism may be relevant. This is a trick in OWL 2 that lets a single URI serve both as a class identifier (the class of C4270printers) but also as an identifier at the instance level, eg. something that might have other data attached like images or links to product documentation. 5. We would effectively be abandoning the attempt to fit the bibliographic universe into 4 buckets, and allowing different parties to name and describe classes at any level of generality, picked out by the properties of the things in that class. I might care to name a class for all books written by all former pupils of the school described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGS_High_Wycombe --- this class would include SQL and Relational Theory, via its author, http://dbpedia.org/page/Christopher_J._Date .... or you might care to create a class for products whose primary inventor was an immigrant. By stepping back from the FRBR 4, we could get a more free-form environment in which properties of all kinds of thing can be used to define whatever classes are useful. 6. What does this mean in terms of 'who defines what when' metadata practice? If the abstract work "SQL and Relational Theory" by C.J.Date is in some sense now an RDF class, what should the URI be? Who publishes it and what practice should exist around the associated online description? I don't know. Maybe authors, publishers and libraries all have a role, ... maybe there are 3 or more semi-competing URIs for that class, one from C.J.Date, one from the publisher O'Reilly or one or more from a library perspective. Perhaps one of these descriptive agencies ends up playing a hub role and including links to further description of the class from the other parties. Maybe practices vary between fields and types of product. I really don't know. And the core RDF/OWL specs are not the kinds of thing that will tell us what's best to do, btw. 7. What kinds of thing are properly expressed at the class level? I also don't know. We might find value in rethinking some properties to more explicitly attach them to the stereotypical ideal member of some class, as a way of admitting that not all instances will match the ideal. Perhaps for eg. the idea that books have 'numPages' could be defined to refer to the stereotypical ideal case, even while applied at the instance level. So if I lose 5 pages from the copy of "SQL and Relational Theory" on my desk, we still say it has 410 numbered pages. Maybe we go through and think 'which properties does it even make sense to mutate at the instance level?". For all the damage I could do to my copy of that book, I'm not going to change its author or subject, for example. So those would be readily expressed in terms of OWL. The numPages could be expressed as an OWL generalisation about all instances if we define that property to be the ideal number, rather than having to track damaged pages etc. And some properties such as geographic location or owner make sense only at the instance level. A few of these (such as e.g. initialOwner) might be static properties that never change their value; others vary from time to time. Ok this post is too long already. Another way of stating all this is that it's an appeal to think more in terms of specific somehow-concrete items, things. Artifacts in your hand, or computer data files that might be checksummed. And that all abstractions above those are means to an end, rather than ends in themselves. So we can ask whether, instead of pondering the vague characteristics of ghostly entities like 'works', 'expressions' and 'manifestations', whether we're simply talking about the common characteristics of collections of identifiable *items*. And if that is what we're doing, whether (a) we can more explicitly share common descriptive practices with other non-textual mass produced kinds of things (b) whether RDF/OWL might have some built-in facilities that could be used more (ie. its notion of class). This all wouldn't abolish the WEMI distinctions, rather they would as sketched above, show up as a kind of annotation on RDF classes. Some classes might be work-ish classes; the class of all Hamlets. Others might be manifestation-ish classes; the class of all paper-printed first edition SQL and Relational Theory copies. But the core organising idea is sets/classes rather than the ghostly upper entities of FRBR. Aspects of those entities would also show up as concrete documents; an artists first sketches of a later painting; CJ Date's book contract with O'Reilly that gave us the later book. First, second and final drafts; hp printer schematics, blueprints; architectural drawings; bike designs; ingredient lists and working notes. But rather than merge our knowledge about all those practical things into the vaguer composite entities of FRBR we just itemise them and describe them as plain old artifacts at the instance level - giving us something like a catalogue of evidence left in the world that shadows the creative process, rather than reifying the act of creation into special 'things' that can be described but never touched, used, read or consumed. Hope this all makes some sense. Related discussion from Bradley Allen, Karen and others: http://bpa.tumblr.com/post/10814190/faceted-classification-and-frbr http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l at listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg03837.html http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l at listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg03848.html http://bibwild.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/frbr-considered-as-set-relationships/ http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2008JulSep/0110.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lld/2010Sep/0049.html cheers, Dan ps. I tried to draw some of this out graphically: http://www.flickr.com/photos/danbri/2891150205/ ... story of a t-shirt design as frbr-inspired classes http://www.flickr.com/photos/danbri/2892286406/in/photostream/ ...same story as a timeline Received on Thursday, 17 March 2011 11:45:15 GMT ? This message: [ Message body ] ? Previous message: Young,Jeff (OR): "RE: Ontological constraints" ? Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ] ? Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] ? Help: [ How to use the archives ] [ Search in the archives ] This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 17 March 2011 11:45:16 GMT From aisaac at few.vu.nl Fri Mar 18 09:45:12 2011 From: aisaac at few.vu.nl (Antoine Isaac) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 09:45:12 +0100 Subject: [goodrelations] Defaults, Prototypes, Individuals in OWL - was: Re: FRBR and classes ('frbr:Works in the age of mechanical reproduction'...) In-Reply-To: <2A88A624-1C06-4780-8D0E-B909067E3346@ebusiness-unibw.org> References: <2A88A624-1C06-4780-8D0E-B909067E3346@ebusiness-unibw.org> Message-ID: <4D831B98.4080209@few.vu.nl> Hi Dan, Interesting stuff indeed :-) I wonder however whether the issue can be sorted out in generality. Some randomly ordered two cents: - you need some "realization/reproduction" links between an abstract FRBR resource and a less ghostly one, or between a design and (re)productions of it. FRBR is not the only one facing that requirement, models like DOLCE (the Information Objects part) or CIDOC-CRM feature a comparable pattern. CRM is for museums, but art that is exposed in musea now can be obtained via mechanization, or subject to it for many purposes. One other important application area for CRM, archeology, is of course full of "realizations" of a more abstract design (think of coins). In fact if you want to bridge to FRBR, you might be interested in FRBRoo, as model trying to re-conciliate FRBR and CRM... - you need an operation that allows you to treat the more concrete resources (in the above "realization" relationship) as the most abstract resources in another realization relationship. OWL2 punning is a solution for this, you may also think of foaf:focus as it allows to associate an individual (concept) to anything more concrete, which could be an OWL class. And in fact it's funny that Martin got involved in this via the GoodRelations stuff, because a couple of years ago he has also worked on a mechanism to bridge SKOS concept schemes with "normal" ontologies, which seems to me quite related. - once you have the patterns sketched above, you can apply them to any number of "realization" levels. In the case of the library domain as captured by FRBR it's 4, but in other domain as you hint it, it could be less. It could be more as well. Very probably it would depend on the application: here we bridge to the huge discussion on the LLD list, where people were objecting that they did not have the data to fully instantiate all the FRBR levels. While in some case this lack is not intended, in other cases it could be a fully conscious choice, based on the observation that full compliance to the 4 levels would be impossible to reach for data producers and/or useless for the data consumer or end user. - the prototype issue applies as soon as you have one level of "realization" or instantiation, starting from the "business-as-usual" class-instance modeling as in all simple OWL ontologies. So I'm not sure it should be treated in strong relation with the FRBR-like many-levels. As Martin's changing the thread subject suggests it, I believe you could have split your impressive post in 2 parts :-) Cheers, Antoine > Hi Dan, > > Thanks for the interesting points, which I found only by accident. Just FYI: > > Both http://www.productontology.org and GoodRelations (http://purl.org/goodrelations) try to cater for the need of modeling classes, individuals, and prototypes in an OWL DL world. > > This happens by using > > a) three subclasses of gr:ProductOrService: > - one for actual, identifiable individuals (gr:ActualProductOrServiceInstance) > - one for bags of anonymous individuals (gr:ProductOrServicesSomeInstancesPlaceholder) > - one for prototypes that define default attributes of individuals (gr:ProductOrServiceModel) > > b) a link between the prototypes and individuals (gr:hasMakeAndModel) > > So you can use common abstractions (e.g. pto:Laser_printer) for all of them while being able to keep them apart when needed by using the intersection of one of the three classes with the respective generic abstraction: > > foo:MyLaserPrinter a pto:Laser_printer, gr:ActualProductOrServiceInstance ; > gr:serialNumber "123445X233"^^xsd:string . > > foo:ProtypeForALaserprinter a pto:Laser_printer, gr:ProductOrServiceModel ; > color "black" . > > Now, if we know that foo:ProtypeForALaserprinter is the prototype for foo:MyLaserPrinter via > > foo:MyLaserPrinter gr:hasMakeAndModel foo:ProtypeForALaserprinter . > > we can infer that it will have the color "black", unless we have information about the specific color of foo:MyLaserPrinter. > > The actual reasoning for the defaults is beyond OWL DL, but can be well modeled e.g. in SPARQL CONSTRUCT rules: > > (from http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelationsOptionalAxiomsAndLinks#Product_Models): > > > # Products inherit all product features from their product models unless they are defined for the products individually > > CONSTRUCT {?product ?property ?valueModel.} > WHERE > { > { > {?product a gr:ActualProductOrServiceInstance.} > UNION > {?product a gr:ProductOrServicesSomeInstancesPlaceholder.} > } > ?model a gr:ProductOrServiceModel. > ?product gr:hasMakeAndModel ?model. > ?model ?property ?valueModel. > { > {?property rdfs:subPropertyOf gr:qualitativeProductOrServiceProperty.} > UNION > {?property rdfs:subPropertyOf gr:quantitativeProductOrServiceProperty.} > UNION > {?property rdfs:subPropertyOf gr:datatypeProductOrServiceProperty.} > } > OPTIONAL {?product ?property ?valueProduct.} > FILTER (!bound(?valueProduct)) > } > > So if foo:MyLaserPrinter does not have a gr:color property, the rule will add > > foo:MyLaserPrinter gr:color "black" . > > Otherwise, it will preserve the local value. > > Quite clearly, an RDF dataspace can only do this once the set of relevant triples is defined; no true OWA. > > While this was initially designed for the pretty narrow case of commodities and their datasheets, it can also be used for other pairs of individuals and prototypes, e.g. a composition and its performance (think of the duration of a piece of piano music). Also, the common abstraction for both may differ (e.g. the prototype could be a foo:Oil_painting and the individual a foo:Picture) or be pretty broad (e.g. foo:DVD). > > > Martin > > > (thinking-out-loud alert) > > So this is a conversation that resurfaces over the years in various > ways. My latest prompt being a combination of (i) seeing > > http://www.productontology.org/ > which declares OWL DL classes (ie. > classes of thing, aka types...) for commonly named products, using > Wikipedia data. The product ontology site uses OWL to describe classes > of largely mass-produced thing: > > "This service provides GoodRelations-compatible OWL DL class > definitions for ca. 300,000 types of product or services that have an > entry in the English Wikipedia, e.g. > > > http://www.productontology.org/doc/Apple > http://www.productontology.org/doc/Laser_printer > http://www.productontology.org/doc/Manure_spreader > http://www.productontology.org/doc/Racing_bicycle > http://www.productontology.org/doc/Soldering_iron > http://www.productontology.org/doc/Sweet_potato > > > Back at DC-2008 in Berlin someone (maybe Karen Coyle or Diane Hillman) > mentioned that a difference between libraries and museums is that the > works collected by the former are mass produced. > > I think we can go some way towards webbifying FRBR by pondering that > observation. I spent monday and tuesday with VU.nl colleagues visiting > the Amsterdam Museum and then the Fab Lab at > http://fablab.waag.org/ > > which showed some possibilities for taking museum artifacts and > replicating lossy copies of them (with 3d printers and other > mechanical reproduction techniques). We could even fabricate moulds > derrived from artifacts that allow others to create new derrived > instances (or their own moulds). Each generation derriving > characteristics from the previous, and adding in its own flaws and > innovations. > > Looking at the Product Ontology examples above, they work better at > describing mechanically reproduced, near-identical artifacts - > Laser_printer, Soldering_Iron than with the natural kinds of thing - > apple, potato etc. Both apple and sweet potato are halfway to being > mass nouns --- you might often have need to describe 'some' apple or > sweet-potato, rather than 'a' sweet potato, although of course you can > have a specific apple or potato in-hand. Mass production brings with > it the prospect of thousands of *near*-identical instances of some > type, as well as associating those with codes and lately URLs that > link us back to information about the recipe or ingredients list for > those types of thing. For complex modern mass produced items, if you > know what kind of item it is, you know a huge amount about that thing > - whether it is a book or a printer or a soldering iron. > > If we forget the library and cultural heritage scene for now, and > think just about these product types: I have here in my room a > specific laser printer. It is an HP Laser Smart C4270. Let's say it > was bought in Leiden, Netherlands and has an owner (this household). > It has specific characteristics local to this copy, as well as > stereotypical characteristics that it shares with all other "HP Laser > Smart C4270s". > > FRBR isn't designed to describe that kind of situation (although the > parallels should be clear). But RDF and OWL do try to address that > general case: RDF/RDFS/OWL is very much in the business of drawing > such class-instance distinctions. OWL also goes some basic way towards > providing information-machinery for stating generalisations about all > the members of some class of thing. However OWL itself avoids certain > complex topics that are relatively hard to avoid for us: it does not > directly give us a way of saying '"typically". It does not give us a > way of distinguishing intrinsic versus accidental properties. The > latter saved W3C from retreading thousands of years of philosophical > debate. The former is perhaps a medium-sized nuisance. Regardless: > > We can think of the class of things in the world that are *printers*. > We can name that class with a URI and publish a description there. > We can think of the class of things in the world that are *laser > printers*. We can name that class with a URI and publish a description > there. > We can think of the class of things in the world that are *HP laser > printers*. We can name that class with a URI and publish a description > there. > We can think of the class of things in the world that are *HP Laser > Smart C4270 printers*. We can name that class with a URI and publish a > description there. > > We can associate any thing in the world with one of more of these > classes; in RDF by asserting an rdf:type relationship to the class. We > can use properties associated with the class to describe the > individual thing 'by hand', or we can draw factual conclusions about > properties of some individual from general knowledge that makes claims > about all members of a class. > > We can go deeper, towards query-like classes, and name the sub-class > of HPLaserSmartC4270-Printer that corresponds to such printers bought > in Leiden; or owned by me. Or that have a damaged scanner lid and > which still serve adequately as a printer. Or which belong to the > subclass manufactured in the UK and that shipped with a UK-compatible > power cable. > > OWL doesn't impose any appropriate level of detail on us, it just > provides descriptive primitives that let us talk in terms of [broadly] > sets of things, the properties that characterise those sets, and the > subset / superset relations between those sets. (We say class instead > of set, and leave that distinction aside for now.) > > Computerised ontology languages like OWL are obsessed with this > class-vs-instance distinction, and in modern mass produced life, the > distinction is all around us, as are near-identical, mechanically > reproduced copies of products - regardless of whether the product was > designed to inform, educate, entertain, or remove unsightly nasal > hair. > > Our FRBR-inspired conversations here are outshadowed by the need to > make equivalent distinctions in other aspects of everyday life. From > tracking down a replacement cable or scanner lid for my printer, to > finding the nearest open shop that will sell me a certain kind of > soldering iron on a sunday, or a certain DVD of a certain film, the > desire to organize information in a way that mirrors the patterns of > similarity amongst mass produced items is a modern universal. > >>From > http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_Mechanical_Reproduction > > and unfairly out of context, > > "In principle a work of art has always been reproducible. Man-made > artifacts could always be imitated by men. Replicas were made by > pupils in practice of their craft, by masters for diffusing their > works, and, finally, by third parties in the pursuit of gain. > Mechanical reproduction of a work of art, however, represents > something new." [...] "With the woodcut graphic art became > mechanically reproducible for the first time, long before script > became reproducible by print. The enormous changes which printing, the > mechanical reproduction of writing, has brought about in literature > are a familiar story. However, within the phenomenon which we are here > examining from the perspective of world history, print is merely a > special, though particularly important, case." > > All I'm suggesting here is that we follow this advice from Walter > Benjamin in 1936 and indulge ourselves in the idea that modeling > bibliographic mass production is merely a special (and important) > case. > > FRBR's "items" are the most concrete, tangible entities in the FRBR > universe. In the physical realm they are things you might hold in your > hand, put in a box, find at some location. The idea extended to the > digital realm is naturally more ephemeral but we do at least have > correspondingly objective characterstics that ground digital objects > in clear ways: notions such as sizeInBytes, cryptographic hashes > (sha1sum, md5) can be used to talk precisely about specific sequences > of 'Zeros' and 'Ones'. > > Looking up the FRBR hierarchy at the more general notions of > "Manifestation", "Expression" and "Work", these are FRBR's particular > story for organizing our millions of items into sensible groups. > FRBR's "work" notion is described textually as a ?distinct > intellectual or artistic creation.?... a kind of ghostly but specific > entity, a kind of social fiction that acts as a descriptive (and > sometimes legal) hub for organizing clusters of related items. > "Expression" brings that somewhat down to earth (?the specific > intellectual or artistic form that a work takes each time it is > ?realized.??), while "Manifestion" finally articulates it in terms > sets/classes rather than individual abstract entities: " ?the physical > embodiment of an expression of a work. As an entity, manifestation > represents all the physical objects that bear the same > characteristics, in respect to both intellectual content and physical > form.?". > > So the distinctions made in terms of these *4* notions are similar to > those baked into the core of RDF itself.... specific fairly concrete > things organized into groups (sets, classes). RDF only allows itself > 'rdf:type' and 'rdfs:subClassOf' relationships as a basis to describe > all this. > > So if we go with this idea that "print is merely a special, though > particularly important, case" of mass produced work, and that is it > worth investigating RDF descriptive habits that address > characteristics of mass production regardless of whether we are > talking about bicycles, books, laser printers or farmyard equipment, > ... where does this leave us? where does it get us? > > 1. We bring more clearly into scope some industrialised areas of > cultural 'content' -- music, tv, films; > http://musicontology.com/ > http://www.bbc.co.uk/ontologies/programmes/2009-09-07.shtml > ... areas > where FRBR is a close but not perfect fit, and class-based models > drift towards being 'FRBR-inspired' rather than 'FRBR-based'. > > 2. We find OWL lacks certain conventions for distinguishing > stereotypical instances from flawed/accidental characteristics of > actual instances. For eg. a copy of a some book I have on my desk > might be missing a certain page, so its literal 'number of pages' > property couldn't be inferred from a common class shared with other > such manifestations of the same abstraction. Or the local adjustments > made here to my printer (I swapped the power cable, or repaired the > lid). There is a big literature in KR about defaults and overrides and > it's tricky to get right with open-world design of RDF/OWL/RDFS. > > 3. Works, Manifestations and Expressions might all just be kinds of > classes; or annotations on classes. The class of *HP Laser Smart C4270 > printers* of which I have one in this room; the class of *SQL and > Relational Theory books* of which I have one on my desk as I type. The > former is described at > > http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/product?cc=us&lc=en&dlc=en&product=3300222 > > by its maker; the latter at > http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596523084 > > ... more general classes might be tagged 'work-class'; very precise > classes tagged 'manifestation-class'. But fundamentally we get a huge, > universal spectrum (from the class of 'every Thing', to the class of > 'No-thing') rather than forcing each into one of the FRBR 4. > > In both these example cases, there are product codes and online > databases, and other people who own different instances of the same > kind of thing. In both cases there are related products (maybe an > ebook, maybe a successor printer design, or ink cartridge) where > information at the level of 'all products' is useful to the owners and > custodians of specific products. > > 4. OWL 2.0's punning mechanism may be relevant. This is a trick in OWL > 2 that lets a single URI serve both as a class identifier (the class > of C4270printers) but also as an identifier at the instance level, eg. > something that might have other data attached like images or links to > product documentation. > > 5. We would effectively be abandoning the attempt to fit the > bibliographic universe into 4 buckets, and allowing different parties > to name and describe classes at any level of generality, picked out by > the properties of the things in that class. I might care to name a > class for all books written by all former pupils of the school > described at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGS_High_Wycombe > --- this > class would include SQL and Relational Theory, via its author, > > http://dbpedia.org/page/Christopher_J._Date > .... or you might care to > create a class for products whose primary inventor was an immigrant. > By stepping back from the FRBR 4, we could get a more free-form > environment in which properties of all kinds of thing can be used to > define whatever classes are useful. > > 6. What does this mean in terms of 'who defines what when' metadata > practice? If the abstract work "SQL and Relational Theory" by C.J.Date > is in some sense now an RDF class, what should the URI be? Who > publishes it and what practice should exist around the associated > online description? I don't know. Maybe authors, publishers and > libraries all have a role, ... maybe there are 3 or more > semi-competing URIs for that class, one from C.J.Date, one from the > publisher O'Reilly or one or more from a library perspective. Perhaps > one of these descriptive agencies ends up playing a hub role and > including links to further description of the class from the other > parties. Maybe practices vary between fields and types of product. I > really don't know. And the core RDF/OWL specs are not the kinds of > thing that will tell us what's best to do, btw. > > 7. What kinds of thing are properly expressed at the class level? I > also don't know. We might find value in rethinking some properties to > more explicitly attach them to the stereotypical ideal member of some > class, as a way of admitting that not all instances will match the > ideal. Perhaps for eg. the idea that books have 'numPages' could be > defined to refer to the stereotypical ideal case, even while applied > at the instance level. So if I lose 5 pages from the copy of "SQL and > Relational Theory" on my desk, we still say it has 410 numbered pages. > Maybe we go through and think 'which properties does it even make > sense to mutate at the instance level?". For all the damage I could do > to my copy of that book, I'm not going to change its author or > subject, for example. So those would be readily expressed in terms of > OWL. The numPages could be expressed as an OWL generalisation about > all instances if we define that property to be the ideal number, > rather than having to track damaged pages etc. And some properties > such as geographic location or owner make sense only at the instance > level. A few of these (such as e.g. initialOwner) might be static > properties that never change their value; others vary from time to > time. > > > Ok this post is too long already. Another way of stating all this is > that it's an appeal to think more in terms of specific > somehow-concrete items, things. Artifacts in your hand, or computer > data files that might be checksummed. And that all abstractions above > those are means to an end, rather than ends in themselves. So we can > ask whether, instead of pondering the vague characteristics of ghostly > entities like 'works', 'expressions' and 'manifestations', whether > we're simply talking about the common characteristics of collections > of identifiable *items*. And if that is what we're doing, whether (a) > we can more explicitly share common descriptive practices with other > non-textual mass produced kinds of things (b) whether RDF/OWL might > have some built-in facilities that could be used more (ie. its notion > of class). > > This all wouldn't abolish the WEMI distinctions, rather they would as > sketched above, show up as a kind of annotation on RDF classes. Some > classes might be work-ish classes; the class of all Hamlets. Others > might be manifestation-ish classes; the class of all paper-printed > first edition SQL and Relational Theory copies. But the core > organising idea is sets/classes rather than the ghostly upper entities > of FRBR. Aspects of those entities would also show up as concrete > documents; an artists first sketches of a later painting; CJ Date's > book contract with O'Reilly that gave us the later book. First, second > and final drafts; hp printer schematics, blueprints; architectural > drawings; bike designs; ingredient lists and working notes. But rather > than merge our knowledge about all those practical things into the > vaguer composite entities of FRBR we just itemise them and describe > them as plain old artifacts at the instance level - giving us > something like a catalogue of evidence left in the world that shadows > the creative process, rather than reifying the act of creation into > special 'things' that can be described but never touched, used, read > or consumed. > > Hope this all makes some sense. Related discussion from Bradley Allen, > Karen and others: > > > http://bpa.tumblr.com/post/10814190/faceted-classification-and-frbr > http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l at listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg03837.html > http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l at listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg03848.html > http://bibwild.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/frbr-considered-as-set-relationships/ > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2008JulSep/0110.html > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lld/2010Sep/0049.html > > > cheers, > > Dan > > ps. I tried to draw some of this out graphically: > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/danbri/2891150205/ > ... story of a > t-shirt design as frbr-inspired classes > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/danbri/2892286406/in/photostream/ > ...same > story as a timeline > > Received on Thursday, 17 March 2011 11:45:15 GMT > ? This message: [ Message body ] > ? Previous message: Young,Jeff (OR): "RE: Ontological constraints" > ? Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ] > ? Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] > ? Help: [ How to use the archives ] [ Search in the archives ] > This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 17 March 2011 11:45:16 GMT > From kcoyle at kcoyle.net Fri Mar 18 15:43:18 2011 From: kcoyle at kcoyle.net (Karen Coyle) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 07:43:18 -0700 Subject: [goodrelations] Defaults, Prototypes, Individuals in OWL - was: Re: FRBR and classes ('frbr:Works in the age of mechanical reproduction'...) In-Reply-To: <4D831B98.4080209@few.vu.nl> References: <2A88A624-1C06-4780-8D0E-B909067E3346@ebusiness-unibw.org> <4D831B98.4080209@few.vu.nl> Message-ID: <20110318074318.141620kuz8gygeiu@kcoyle.net> I think this becomes possible with FRBR when a class is created either for Group 1 as a whole, with WEMI being subclasses of that class (frbrCore and FRBRoo both take this approach), and/or for the three FRBR groups as a whole. This was the essence of a lengthy (and non-recoverable) thread on the FRBR discussion list, with the parties breaking down into these "thought sets": - FRBR needs a "super-class" so that relationships can be made to non-FRBR-ized bibliographic descriptions - no super-class is needed because you can link to the frbr:manifestation (which then in turn links to Expression and Work) - no super-class is needed because the Work represents the whole kc Quoting Antoine Isaac : > Hi Dan, > > Interesting stuff indeed :-) I wonder however whether the issue can > be sorted out in generality. Some randomly ordered two cents: > > - you need some "realization/reproduction" links between an abstract > FRBR resource and a less ghostly one, or between a design and > (re)productions of it. FRBR is not the only one facing that > requirement, models like DOLCE (the Information Objects part) or > CIDOC-CRM feature a comparable pattern. CRM is for museums, but art > that is exposed in musea now can be obtained via mechanization, or > subject to it for many purposes. One other important application > area for CRM, archeology, is of course full of "realizations" of a > more abstract design (think of coins). In fact if you want to bridge > to FRBR, you might be interested in FRBRoo, as model trying to > re-conciliate FRBR and CRM... > > - you need an operation that allows you to treat the more concrete > resources (in the above "realization" relationship) as the most > abstract resources in another realization relationship. OWL2 punning > is a solution for this, you may also think of foaf:focus as it > allows to associate an individual (concept) to anything more > concrete, which could be an OWL class. And in fact it's funny that > Martin got involved in this via the GoodRelations stuff, because a > couple of years ago he has also worked on a mechanism to bridge SKOS > concept schemes with "normal" ontologies, which seems to me quite > related. > > - once you have the patterns sketched above, you can apply them to > any number of "realization" levels. In the case of the library > domain as captured by FRBR it's 4, but in other domain as you hint > it, it could be less. It could be more as well. Very probably it > would depend on the application: here we bridge to the huge > discussion on the LLD list, where people were objecting that they > did not have the data to fully instantiate all the FRBR levels. > While in some case this lack is not intended, in other cases it > could be a fully conscious choice, based on the observation that > full compliance to the 4 levels would be impossible to reach for > data producers and/or useless for the data consumer or end user. > > - the prototype issue applies as soon as you have one level of > "realization" or instantiation, starting from the > "business-as-usual" class-instance modeling as in all simple OWL > ontologies. So I'm not sure it should be treated in strong relation > with the FRBR-like many-levels. As Martin's changing the thread > subject suggests it, I believe you could have split your impressive > post in 2 parts :-) > > Cheers, > > Antoine > > >> Hi Dan, >> >> Thanks for the interesting points, which I found only by accident. Just FYI: >> >> Both http://www.productontology.org and GoodRelations >> (http://purl.org/goodrelations) try to cater for the need of >> modeling classes, individuals, and prototypes in an OWL DL world. >> >> This happens by using >> >> a) three subclasses of gr:ProductOrService: >> - one for actual, identifiable individuals >> (gr:ActualProductOrServiceInstance) >> - one for bags of anonymous individuals >> (gr:ProductOrServicesSomeInstancesPlaceholder) >> - one for prototypes that define default attributes of individuals >> (gr:ProductOrServiceModel) >> >> b) a link between the prototypes and individuals (gr:hasMakeAndModel) >> >> So you can use common abstractions (e.g. pto:Laser_printer) for all >> of them while being able to keep them apart when needed by using >> the intersection of one of the three classes with the respective >> generic abstraction: >> >> foo:MyLaserPrinter a pto:Laser_printer, gr:ActualProductOrServiceInstance ; >> gr:serialNumber "123445X233"^^xsd:string . >> >> foo:ProtypeForALaserprinter a pto:Laser_printer, gr:ProductOrServiceModel ; >> color "black" . >> >> Now, if we know that foo:ProtypeForALaserprinter is the prototype >> for foo:MyLaserPrinter via >> >> foo:MyLaserPrinter gr:hasMakeAndModel foo:ProtypeForALaserprinter . >> >> we can infer that it will have the color "black", unless we have >> information about the specific color of foo:MyLaserPrinter. >> >> The actual reasoning for the defaults is beyond OWL DL, but can be >> well modeled e.g. in SPARQL CONSTRUCT rules: >> >> (from >> http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelationsOptionalAxiomsAndLinks#Product_Models): >> >> >> # Products inherit all product features from their product models >> unless they are defined for the products individually >> >> CONSTRUCT {?product ?property ?valueModel.} >> WHERE >> { >> { >> {?product a gr:ActualProductOrServiceInstance.} >> UNION >> {?product a gr:ProductOrServicesSomeInstancesPlaceholder.} >> } >> ?model a gr:ProductOrServiceModel. >> ?product gr:hasMakeAndModel ?model. >> ?model ?property ?valueModel. >> { >> {?property rdfs:subPropertyOf gr:qualitativeProductOrServiceProperty.} >> UNION >> {?property rdfs:subPropertyOf gr:quantitativeProductOrServiceProperty.} >> UNION >> {?property rdfs:subPropertyOf gr:datatypeProductOrServiceProperty.} >> } >> OPTIONAL {?product ?property ?valueProduct.} >> FILTER (!bound(?valueProduct)) >> } >> >> So if foo:MyLaserPrinter does not have a gr:color property, the >> rule will add >> >> foo:MyLaserPrinter gr:color "black" . >> >> Otherwise, it will preserve the local value. >> >> Quite clearly, an RDF dataspace can only do this once the set of >> relevant triples is defined; no true OWA. >> >> While this was initially designed for the pretty narrow case of >> commodities and their datasheets, it can also be used for other >> pairs of individuals and prototypes, e.g. a composition and its >> performance (think of the duration of a piece of piano music). >> Also, the common abstraction for both may differ (e.g. the >> prototype could be a foo:Oil_painting and the individual a >> foo:Picture) or be pretty broad (e.g. foo:DVD). >> >> >> Martin >> >> >> (thinking-out-loud alert) >> >> So this is a conversation that resurfaces over the years in various >> ways. My latest prompt being a combination of (i) seeing >> >> http://www.productontology.org/ >> which declares OWL DL classes (ie. >> classes of thing, aka types...) for commonly named products, using >> Wikipedia data. The product ontology site uses OWL to describe classes >> of largely mass-produced thing: >> >> "This service provides GoodRelations-compatible OWL DL class >> definitions for ca. 300,000 types of product or services that have an >> entry in the English Wikipedia, e.g. >> >> >> http://www.productontology.org/doc/Apple >> http://www.productontology.org/doc/Laser_printer >> http://www.productontology.org/doc/Manure_spreader >> http://www.productontology.org/doc/Racing_bicycle >> http://www.productontology.org/doc/Soldering_iron >> http://www.productontology.org/doc/Sweet_potato >> >> >> Back at DC-2008 in Berlin someone (maybe Karen Coyle or Diane Hillman) >> mentioned that a difference between libraries and museums is that the >> works collected by the former are mass produced. >> >> I think we can go some way towards webbifying FRBR by pondering that >> observation. I spent monday and tuesday with VU.nl colleagues visiting >> the Amsterdam Museum and then the Fab Lab at >> http://fablab.waag.org/ >> >> which showed some possibilities for taking museum artifacts and >> replicating lossy copies of them (with 3d printers and other >> mechanical reproduction techniques). We could even fabricate moulds >> derrived from artifacts that allow others to create new derrived >> instances (or their own moulds). Each generation derriving >> characteristics from the previous, and adding in its own flaws and >> innovations. >> >> Looking at the Product Ontology examples above, they work better at >> describing mechanically reproduced, near-identical artifacts - >> Laser_printer, Soldering_Iron than with the natural kinds of thing - >> apple, potato etc. Both apple and sweet potato are halfway to being >> mass nouns --- you might often have need to describe 'some' apple or >> sweet-potato, rather than 'a' sweet potato, although of course you can >> have a specific apple or potato in-hand. Mass production brings with >> it the prospect of thousands of *near*-identical instances of some >> type, as well as associating those with codes and lately URLs that >> link us back to information about the recipe or ingredients list for >> those types of thing. For complex modern mass produced items, if you >> know what kind of item it is, you know a huge amount about that thing >> - whether it is a book or a printer or a soldering iron. >> >> If we forget the library and cultural heritage scene for now, and >> think just about these product types: I have here in my room a >> specific laser printer. It is an HP Laser Smart C4270. Let's say it >> was bought in Leiden, Netherlands and has an owner (this household). >> It has specific characteristics local to this copy, as well as >> stereotypical characteristics that it shares with all other "HP Laser >> Smart C4270s". >> >> FRBR isn't designed to describe that kind of situation (although the >> parallels should be clear). But RDF and OWL do try to address that >> general case: RDF/RDFS/OWL is very much in the business of drawing >> such class-instance distinctions. OWL also goes some basic way towards >> providing information-machinery for stating generalisations about all >> the members of some class of thing. However OWL itself avoids certain >> complex topics that are relatively hard to avoid for us: it does not >> directly give us a way of saying '"typically". It does not give us a >> way of distinguishing intrinsic versus accidental properties. The >> latter saved W3C from retreading thousands of years of philosophical >> debate. The former is perhaps a medium-sized nuisance. Regardless: >> >> We can think of the class of things in the world that are *printers*. >> We can name that class with a URI and publish a description there. >> We can think of the class of things in the world that are *laser >> printers*. We can name that class with a URI and publish a description >> there. >> We can think of the class of things in the world that are *HP laser >> printers*. We can name that class with a URI and publish a description >> there. >> We can think of the class of things in the world that are *HP Laser >> Smart C4270 printers*. We can name that class with a URI and publish a >> description there. >> >> We can associate any thing in the world with one of more of these >> classes; in RDF by asserting an rdf:type relationship to the class. We >> can use properties associated with the class to describe the >> individual thing 'by hand', or we can draw factual conclusions about >> properties of some individual from general knowledge that makes claims >> about all members of a class. >> >> We can go deeper, towards query-like classes, and name the sub-class >> of HPLaserSmartC4270-Printer that corresponds to such printers bought >> in Leiden; or owned by me. Or that have a damaged scanner lid and >> which still serve adequately as a printer. Or which belong to the >> subclass manufactured in the UK and that shipped with a UK-compatible >> power cable. >> >> OWL doesn't impose any appropriate level of detail on us, it just >> provides descriptive primitives that let us talk in terms of [broadly] >> sets of things, the properties that characterise those sets, and the >> subset / superset relations between those sets. (We say class instead >> of set, and leave that distinction aside for now.) >> >> Computerised ontology languages like OWL are obsessed with this >> class-vs-instance distinction, and in modern mass produced life, the >> distinction is all around us, as are near-identical, mechanically >> reproduced copies of products - regardless of whether the product was >> designed to inform, educate, entertain, or remove unsightly nasal >> hair. >> >> Our FRBR-inspired conversations here are outshadowed by the need to >> make equivalent distinctions in other aspects of everyday life. From >> tracking down a replacement cable or scanner lid for my printer, to >> finding the nearest open shop that will sell me a certain kind of >> soldering iron on a sunday, or a certain DVD of a certain film, the >> desire to organize information in a way that mirrors the patterns of >> similarity amongst mass produced items is a modern universal. >> >>> From >> http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_Mechanical_Reproduction >> >> and unfairly out of context, >> >> "In principle a work of art has always been reproducible. Man-made >> artifacts could always be imitated by men. Replicas were made by >> pupils in practice of their craft, by masters for diffusing their >> works, and, finally, by third parties in the pursuit of gain. >> Mechanical reproduction of a work of art, however, represents >> something new." [...] "With the woodcut graphic art became >> mechanically reproducible for the first time, long before script >> became reproducible by print. The enormous changes which printing, the >> mechanical reproduction of writing, has brought about in literature >> are a familiar story. However, within the phenomenon which we are here >> examining from the perspective of world history, print is merely a >> special, though particularly important, case." >> >> All I'm suggesting here is that we follow this advice from Walter >> Benjamin in 1936 and indulge ourselves in the idea that modeling >> bibliographic mass production is merely a special (and important) >> case. >> >> FRBR's "items" are the most concrete, tangible entities in the FRBR >> universe. In the physical realm they are things you might hold in your >> hand, put in a box, find at some location. The idea extended to the >> digital realm is naturally more ephemeral but we do at least have >> correspondingly objective characterstics that ground digital objects >> in clear ways: notions such as sizeInBytes, cryptographic hashes >> (sha1sum, md5) can be used to talk precisely about specific sequences >> of 'Zeros' and 'Ones'. >> >> Looking up the FRBR hierarchy at the more general notions of >> "Manifestation", "Expression" and "Work", these are FRBR's particular >> story for organizing our millions of items into sensible groups. >> FRBR's "work" notion is described textually as a ?distinct >> intellectual or artistic creation.?... a kind of ghostly but specific >> entity, a kind of social fiction that acts as a descriptive (and >> sometimes legal) hub for organizing clusters of related items. >> "Expression" brings that somewhat down to earth (?the specific >> intellectual or artistic form that a work takes each time it is >> ?realized.??), while "Manifestion" finally articulates it in terms >> sets/classes rather than individual abstract entities: " ?the physical >> embodiment of an expression of a work. As an entity, manifestation >> represents all the physical objects that bear the same >> characteristics, in respect to both intellectual content and physical >> form.?". >> >> So the distinctions made in terms of these *4* notions are similar to >> those baked into the core of RDF itself.... specific fairly concrete >> things organized into groups (sets, classes). RDF only allows itself >> 'rdf:type' and 'rdfs:subClassOf' relationships as a basis to describe >> all this. >> >> So if we go with this idea that "print is merely a special, though >> particularly important, case" of mass produced work, and that is it >> worth investigating RDF descriptive habits that address >> characteristics of mass production regardless of whether we are >> talking about bicycles, books, laser printers or farmyard equipment, >> ... where does this leave us? where does it get us? >> >> 1. We bring more clearly into scope some industrialised areas of >> cultural 'content' -- music, tv, films; >> http://musicontology.com/ >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/ontologies/programmes/2009-09-07.shtml >> ... areas >> where FRBR is a close but not perfect fit, and class-based models >> drift towards being 'FRBR-inspired' rather than 'FRBR-based'. >> >> 2. We find OWL lacks certain conventions for distinguishing >> stereotypical instances from flawed/accidental characteristics of >> actual instances. For eg. a copy of a some book I have on my desk >> might be missing a certain page, so its literal 'number of pages' >> property couldn't be inferred from a common class shared with other >> such manifestations of the same abstraction. Or the local adjustments >> made here to my printer (I swapped the power cable, or repaired the >> lid). There is a big literature in KR about defaults and overrides and >> it's tricky to get right with open-world design of RDF/OWL/RDFS. >> >> 3. Works, Manifestations and Expressions might all just be kinds of >> classes; or annotations on classes. The class of *HP Laser Smart C4270 >> printers* of which I have one in this room; the class of *SQL and >> Relational Theory books* of which I have one on my desk as I type. The >> former is described at >> >> http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/product?cc=us&lc=en&dlc=en&product=3300222 >> >> by its maker; the latter at >> http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596523084 >> >> ... more general classes might be tagged 'work-class'; very precise >> classes tagged 'manifestation-class'. But fundamentally we get a huge, >> universal spectrum (from the class of 'every Thing', to the class of >> 'No-thing') rather than forcing each into one of the FRBR 4. >> >> In both these example cases, there are product codes and online >> databases, and other people who own different instances of the same >> kind of thing. In both cases there are related products (maybe an >> ebook, maybe a successor printer design, or ink cartridge) where >> information at the level of 'all products' is useful to the owners and >> custodians of specific products. >> >> 4. OWL 2.0's punning mechanism may be relevant. This is a trick in OWL >> 2 that lets a single URI serve both as a class identifier (the class >> of C4270printers) but also as an identifier at the instance level, eg. >> something that might have other data attached like images or links to >> product documentation. >> >> 5. We would effectively be abandoning the attempt to fit the >> bibliographic universe into 4 buckets, and allowing different parties >> to name and describe classes at any level of generality, picked out by >> the properties of the things in that class. I might care to name a >> class for all books written by all former pupils of the school >> described at >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGS_High_Wycombe >> --- this >> class would include SQL and Relational Theory, via its author, >> >> http://dbpedia.org/page/Christopher_J._Date >> .... or you might care to >> create a class for products whose primary inventor was an immigrant. >> By stepping back from the FRBR 4, we could get a more free-form >> environment in which properties of all kinds of thing can be used to >> define whatever classes are useful. >> >> 6. What does this mean in terms of 'who defines what when' metadata >> practice? If the abstract work "SQL and Relational Theory" by C.J.Date >> is in some sense now an RDF class, what should the URI be? Who >> publishes it and what practice should exist around the associated >> online description? I don't know. Maybe authors, publishers and >> libraries all have a role, ... maybe there are 3 or more >> semi-competing URIs for that class, one from C.J.Date, one from the >> publisher O'Reilly or one or more from a library perspective. Perhaps >> one of these descriptive agencies ends up playing a hub role and >> including links to further description of the class from the other >> parties. Maybe practices vary between fields and types of product. I >> really don't know. And the core RDF/OWL specs are not the kinds of >> thing that will tell us what's best to do, btw. >> >> 7. What kinds of thing are properly expressed at the class level? I >> also don't know. We might find value in rethinking some properties to >> more explicitly attach them to the stereotypical ideal member of some >> class, as a way of admitting that not all instances will match the >> ideal. Perhaps for eg. the idea that books have 'numPages' could be >> defined to refer to the stereotypical ideal case, even while applied >> at the instance level. So if I lose 5 pages from the copy of "SQL and >> Relational Theory" on my desk, we still say it has 410 numbered pages. >> Maybe we go through and think 'which properties does it even make >> sense to mutate at the instance level?". For all the damage I could do >> to my copy of that book, I'm not going to change its author or >> subject, for example. So those would be readily expressed in terms of >> OWL. The numPages could be expressed as an OWL generalisation about >> all instances if we define that property to be the ideal number, >> rather than having to track damaged pages etc. And some properties >> such as geographic location or owner make sense only at the instance >> level. A few of these (such as e.g. initialOwner) might be static >> properties that never change their value; others vary from time to >> time. >> >> >> Ok this post is too long already. Another way of stating all this is >> that it's an appeal to think more in terms of specific >> somehow-concrete items, things. Artifacts in your hand, or computer >> data files that might be checksummed. And that all abstractions above >> those are means to an end, rather than ends in themselves. So we can >> ask whether, instead of pondering the vague characteristics of ghostly >> entities like 'works', 'expressions' and 'manifestations', whether >> we're simply talking about the common characteristics of collections >> of identifiable *items*. And if that is what we're doing, whether (a) >> we can more explicitly share common descriptive practices with other >> non-textual mass produced kinds of things (b) whether RDF/OWL might >> have some built-in facilities that could be used more (ie. its notion >> of class). >> >> This all wouldn't abolish the WEMI distinctions, rather they would as >> sketched above, show up as a kind of annotation on RDF classes. Some >> classes might be work-ish classes; the class of all Hamlets. Others >> might be manifestation-ish classes; the class of all paper-printed >> first edition SQL and Relational Theory copies. But the core >> organising idea is sets/classes rather than the ghostly upper entities >> of FRBR. Aspects of those entities would also show up as concrete >> documents; an artists first sketches of a later painting; CJ Date's >> book contract with O'Reilly that gave us the later book. First, second >> and final drafts; hp printer schematics, blueprints; architectural >> drawings; bike designs; ingredient lists and working notes. But rather >> than merge our knowledge about all those practical things into the >> vaguer composite entities of FRBR we just itemise them and describe >> them as plain old artifacts at the instance level - giving us >> something like a catalogue of evidence left in the world that shadows >> the creative process, rather than reifying the act of creation into >> special 'things' that can be described but never touched, used, read >> or consumed. >> >> Hope this all makes some sense. Related discussion from Bradley Allen, >> Karen and others: >> >> >> http://bpa.tumblr.com/post/10814190/faceted-classification-and-frbr >> http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l at listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg03837.html >> http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l at listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg03848.html >> http://bibwild.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/frbr-considered-as-set-relationships/ >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2008JulSep/0110.html >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lld/2010Sep/0049.html >> >> >> cheers, >> >> Dan >> >> ps. I tried to draw some of this out graphically: >> >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/danbri/2891150205/ >> ... story of a >> t-shirt design as frbr-inspired classes >> >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/danbri/2892286406/in/photostream/ >> ...same >> story as a timeline >> >> Received on Thursday, 17 March 2011 11:45:15 GMT >> ? This message: [ Message body ] >> ? Previous message: Young,Jeff (OR): "RE: Ontological constraints" >> ? Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ] >> ? Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by >> subject ] [ by author ] >> ? Help: [ How to use the archives ] [ Search in the archives ] >> This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, >> 17 March 2011 11:45:16 GMT >> > > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle at kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet From martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org Mon Mar 21 11:01:57 2011 From: martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org (Martin Hepp) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:01:57 +0100 Subject: [goodrelations] Facebook Open Graph and http://www.productontology.org In-Reply-To: References: <2090A88D-4350-4E3B-837F-D33CA0619C43@ebusiness-unibw.org> Message-ID: Hi All: I just added customized examples of how to use more precises types from www.productontology.org with Facebook OGP: See http://www.productontology.org/#facebook For example, a page describing a Cello could be marked up for OGP with ogp:type="pto:Cello" easily. http://www.productontology.org/doc/Cello#facebook This validates with Linter (http://developers.facebook.com/tools/lint/). An OGP-aware client can then get class abstracts and translations in up to 100 languages from www.productontology.org, e.g. via http://www.productontology.org/doc/Cello.rdf (or via http://www.productontology.org/id/Cello via HTTP content negotiation). Best Martin On Mar 17, 2011, at 3:45 PM, Martin Hepp wrote: > Hi Paul, > > I just created two pages > > http://www.heppnetz.de/facebook-pto1.html (with ONE ogp:type statement from www.productontology.org) and > http://www.heppnetz.de/facebook-pto2.html (with TWO ogp:type statements, ogp:type="product" and ogp:type="Laser_printer" from www.productontology.org) > > Linter does not like two ogp:type statements :-( ("Warning: Duplicate tags -You used "type" multiple times, but it should only appear once") > > Are there any downsides of using ONLY ogp:type="pto:xyz" and omitting ogp:type="product"? > > For more powerful Facebook applications, it would be really, really good if site-owners added specific PTO types. On the other hand I fear that many may not want to omit ogp:type="product", since standard applications may then not discover that the page covers a product. > > Or am I wrong and you can recommend using PTO types without hesitation? > > > Martin > > > PS: Attached is the demo markup: > > > "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> > xmlns:og="http://ogp.me/ns#" > xmlns:fb="http://www.facebook.com/2008/fbml" > xmlns:pto="http://www.productontology.org/id/" > xmlns:gr="http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#"> > > > HP Photosmart e-All-in-One Printer - D110a (OGP + GoodRelations) > > > > > > > content="Print lab-quality photos, everyday documents, and Web > content on the fly, without Using a PC. HP ePrint and integrated wireless > make it easy to share our Photosmart e-All-in-One?D110a with multiple PCs > and print from any room in your home."/> > > > > Demo page for combining Facebook Open Graph Protocol with http://www.productontology.org > > Print lab-quality photos, everyday documents, and Web > content on the fly, without Using a PC. HP ePrint and integrated wireless > make it easy to share our Photosmart e-All-in-One?D110a with multiple PCs > and print from any room in your home. > > > > > > On Mar 17, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Martin Hepp wrote: > >> Hi Paul, >> On Mar 16, 2011, at 11:52 PM, Paul Tarjan wrote: >> >>> Great idea Martin! >>> >>> Yes, we do accept CURIEs as the og:type. Just make sure to declare your >>> namespace on the page and you're good to go. >> >> Great! >> >> Would you also tolerate TWO og:type statements? This would it make is easy to combine generic OGP types ("movie") with very specific ("Action film", "Educational film") ones so that the OGP data will be understood both by standard applications and such that honor additional specificity. >> >> Example: >> >> > xmlns:pto="http://www.productontology.org/id/" > >> >> .... >> >> >> >> You would have 300 - 600,000 very specific types with labels in up to 80 languages, so you could easily display them with the proper category instead of "other". >> >> >> Martin >> >>> Try passing your example into >>> the linter and it should just work. >>> >> Will do. >> >>> Paul >>> >>> On 3/16/11 6:24 AM, "Martin Hepp" wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all: >>>> >>>> A simple yet powerful usage of this service with the OGP may be to accept >>>> the CURIEs (compact URIs) of www.productontology.org as literal values >>>> for ogp:type, e.g. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This would give Facebook unprecedented precision without the need to >>>> maintain the type identifiers, plus up to 100 translations for the types. >>>> >>>> >>>> Full example for >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.shopping.hp.com/product/printer/Photosmart/1/storefronts/CN731A >>>> %2523B1H >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> xmlns:og="http://ogp.me/ns#" >>>> xmlns:fb="http://www.facebook.com/2008/fbml"> >>>> >>>> The Rock (1996) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> content="http://www.shopping.hp.com/product/printer/Photosmart/1/storefron >>>> ts/CN731A%2523B1H"/> >>>> >>> content="http://hpshopping.speedera.net/s7d2.scene7.com/is/image/HPShoppin >>>> g/cn731a_main?$full3_fmt$"/> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> content="Print lab-quality photos, everyday documents, and Web >>>> content on the fly, without Using a PC. HP ePrint and integrated wireless >>>> make it easy to share our Photosmart e-All-in-One?D110a with multiple PCs >>>> and print from any room in your home."/> >>>> ... >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 1, 2011, at 7:21 PM, Martin Hepp wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all: >>>>> >>>>> We are happy to release http://www.productontology.org, an >>>>> online-service >>>>> that provides class definitions for all of the ca. 300,000 types >>>>> of products or services that are contained in the 3.5 million Wikipedia >>>>> entries. >>>>> >>>>> This can be used in combination with the OGP if you add GoodRelations >>>>> (http://purl.org/goodrelations/) markup in RDFa to the body of your >>>>> page. >>>>> >>>>> In short, www.productontology.org provides for the schema level what >>>>> DBpedia >>>>> provides for the data / instance level of the Semantic Web. >>>>> >>>>> A few examples: >>>>> >>>>> Laser_printer http://www.productontology.org/id/Laser_printer >>>>> Manure_spreader http://www.productontology.org/id/Manure_spreader >>>>> Racing_bicycle http://www.productontology.org/id/Racing_bicycle >>>>> Soldering_iron http://www.productontology.org/id/Soldering_iron >>>>> Sweet_potato http://www.productontology.org/id/Sweet_potato >>>>> >>>>> The Product Ontology is designed to be compatible with the >>>>> GoodRelations >>>>> Ontology for e-commerce, but it can be used for any other purpose that >>>>> requires >>>>> class definitions for specific objects. >>>>> >>>>> All Wikipedia translations are preserved, so you have up to 100 >>>>> translations per label. >>>>> >>>>> It would be worthwhile to think about how this can be used directly >>>>> within the >>>>> OGP for identifying more specific types of page content. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Background informations and FAQs: >>>>> http://www.productontology.org/#faq >>>>> >>>>> Examples in RDF/XML, Turtle, and RDFa: >>>>> http://www.productontology.org/#examples >>>>> >>>>> Any feedback is highly appreciated! >>>>> >>>>> Acknowledgments: Thanks to Axel Polleres, Andreas Radinger, Alex Stolz, >>>>> and >>>>> Giovanni Tummarello for very valuable feedback. >>>>> >>>>> The work on The Product Types Ontology has been supported by the German >>>>> Federal >>>>> Ministry of Research (BMBF) by a grant under the KMU Innovativ program >>>>> as part >>>>> of the Intelligent Match project (FKZ 01IS10022B). >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> martin hepp >>>>> e-business & web science research group >>>>> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen >>>>> >>>>> e-mail: hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org >>>>> phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 >>>>> fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 >>>>> www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) >>>>> http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) >>>>> skype: mfhepp >>>>> twitter: mfhepp >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> goodrelations mailing list >>> goodrelations at ebusiness-unibw.org >>> http://ebusiness-unibw.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goodrelations >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> goodrelations mailing list >> goodrelations at ebusiness-unibw.org >> http://ebusiness-unibw.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goodrelations > > > _______________________________________________ > goodrelations mailing list > goodrelations at ebusiness-unibw.org > http://ebusiness-unibw.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goodrelations From martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org Thu Mar 24 09:16:20 2011 From: martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org (Martin Hepp) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:16:20 +0100 Subject: [goodrelations] Mark your calendars: Free Infoday on GoodRelations & RDFa for SEO, Marketing, and Business Matchmaking (in German) Message-ID: <8FCC7931-0B98-4352-85B0-1EFAF36338B2@ebusiness-unibw.org> Dear all: You are kindly invited to join us for the upcoming Infoday on GoodRelations & RDFa for SEO, Marketing, and Business Matchmaking, which will be held in =============================== Darmstadt, Germany on April 19. =============================== For the agenda and free registration, please see http://intelligent-match.de/intelligent-match-transfer/ID9008_134035137 The event is in German. Similar events in English in other European cities are on our agenda. Best wishes Martin Hepp -------------------------------------------------------- martin hepp e-business & web science research group universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen e-mail: hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) skype: mfhepp twitter: mfhepp From ltorokjr at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 11:14:43 2011 From: ltorokjr at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?B?TOFzemzzIFT2cvZr?=) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:14:43 +0200 Subject: [goodrelations] GoodRelations in RDFa: HTML or XHTML? Message-ID: Hi, I've started to play around with the GoodRelations vocab recently, after trying to add RDFa content to an existing HTML page I discovered that the RDFa was only defined for XHTML. Now, we know there HTML parsers are quite tolerant and always try to make the best out of broken or not 100% valid markup. My question is: Having a legacy HTML4 page, do I NEED to transform it into a valid XHTML page to be able to add GR markup as RDFa to it? Or just change the doctype and leave it up to the crawlers? I went through some of the sources (Google etc.) but none of them explicitly stated the importance of a valid XHTML markup. Does anybody have any experience wrt this matter? Thanks, Laszlo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From irene.celino at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 11:28:38 2011 From: irene.celino at gmail.com (Irene Celino) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:28:38 +0200 Subject: [goodrelations] GoodRelations in RDFa: HTML or XHTML? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi L?szl?, RDFa was originally designed for XHTML only. They are now discussing ways to embed RDFa in other markup like HTML5; not sure about HTML4. You can have a look at the RDFa working group wiki [1] or directly ask to the RDFa mailing list [2]. HTH, Irene [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/Main_Page [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa/ Irene Celino CEFRIEL - ICT Institute Politecnico di Milano Via Fucini, 2 - 20133 Milano (Italy) phone: +39 0223954266 fax: +39 0223954466 email: Irene.Celino at cefriel.it, irene at iricelino.org web: http://swa.cefriel.it, http://iricelino.org 2011/3/28 L?szl? T?r?k : > Hi, > > I've started to play around with the GoodRelations vocab recently, after > trying to add RDFa content to an existing HTML page I discovered that the > RDFa was only defined for XHTML. > > Now, we know there HTML parsers are quite tolerant and always try to make > the best out of broken or not 100% valid markup. > > My question is: Having a legacy HTML4 page, do I NEED to transform it into a > valid XHTML page to be able to add GR markup as RDFa to it? Or just change > the doctype and leave it up to the crawlers? > > I went through some of the sources (Google etc.) but none of them explicitly > stated the importance of a valid XHTML markup. Does anybody have any > experience wrt this matter? > > Thanks, > > Laszlo > > _______________________________________________ > goodrelations mailing list > goodrelations at ebusiness-unibw.org > http://ebusiness-unibw.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goodrelations > > -- ? ? " If you understand what you're doing, ? ? ? ? ?? you're not learning anything. " From martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org Mon Mar 28 11:33:50 2011 From: martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org (Martin Hepp) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:33:50 +0200 Subject: [goodrelations] GoodRelations in RDFa: HTML or XHTML? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Laszlo: You do not have to polish an existing HTML4 or buggy HTML page into valid XHTML or HTML5 before adding GoodRelations in RDFa. Most RDFa parsers, e.g. PyRDFa, are able to correctly extract RDF from RDFa in "buggy" HTML markup. However, the cleaner the markup, the more reliable the extraction, so you make your pages more accessible for novel search engines if your markup is consistent. Buggy markup is more problematic if you use RDFa closely interwoven with existing visible page content, it is less of a problem if you use RDFa in "snippet style". For more info, see http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/RDFaAuthoring#RDFa_in_Snippet_Style In general: Lack of well-formedness is more problematic than e.g. misspelt HTML element names or invalid attributes (e.g. missing "alt" for images). The main obstacle for RDFa parsers are those cases where they have to guess the position of a missing closing element. Bottom-line: If you can keep your page valid XHTML, try to do that. But if can't, this should not stop you from adding GoodRelations to your page. GoodRelations in RDFa in a page not yet being valid XHTML or HTML5 is better than no GoodRelations ;-) Best wishes Martin Hepp On Mar 28, 2011, at 11:14 AM, L?szl? T?r?k wrote: > Hi, > > I've started to play around with the GoodRelations vocab recently, after trying to add RDFa content to an existing HTML page I discovered that the RDFa was only defined for XHTML. > > Now, we know there HTML parsers are quite tolerant and always try to make the best out of broken or not 100% valid markup. > > My question is: Having a legacy HTML4 page, do I NEED to transform it into a valid XHTML page to be able to add GR markup as RDFa to it? Or just change the doctype and leave it up to the crawlers? > > I went through some of the sources (Google etc.) but none of them explicitly stated the importance of a valid XHTML markup. Does anybody have any experience wrt this matter? > > Thanks, > > Laszlo > _______________________________________________ > goodrelations mailing list > goodrelations at ebusiness-unibw.org > http://ebusiness-unibw.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goodrelations From ltorokjr at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 12:17:27 2011 From: ltorokjr at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?B?TOFzemzzIFT2cvZr?=) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:17:27 +0200 Subject: [goodrelations] GoodRelations in RDFa: HTML or XHTML? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Folks, thank you all for your suggestions! Kind regards, Laszlo 2011/3/28 Martin Hepp > Dear Laszlo: > > You do not have to polish an existing HTML4 or buggy HTML page into valid > XHTML or HTML5 before adding GoodRelations in RDFa. > > Most RDFa parsers, e.g. PyRDFa, are able to correctly extract RDF from RDFa > in "buggy" HTML markup. > > However, the cleaner the markup, the more reliable the extraction, so you > make your pages more accessible for novel search engines if your markup is > consistent. > > Buggy markup is more problematic if you use RDFa closely interwoven with > existing visible page content, it is less of a problem if you use RDFa in > "snippet style". > > For more info, see > http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/RDFaAuthoring#RDFa_in_Snippet_Style > > In general: Lack of well-formedness is more problematic than e.g. misspelt > HTML element names or invalid attributes (e.g. missing "alt" for images). > The main obstacle for RDFa parsers are those cases where they have to guess > the position of a missing closing element. > > > Bottom-line: If you can keep your page valid XHTML, try to do that. But if > can't, this should not stop you from adding GoodRelations to your page. > GoodRelations in RDFa in a page not yet being valid XHTML or HTML5 is better > than no GoodRelations ;-) > > Best wishes > > Martin Hepp > > > On Mar 28, 2011, at 11:14 AM, L?szl? T?r?k wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I've started to play around with the GoodRelations vocab recently, after > trying to add RDFa content to an existing HTML page I discovered that the > RDFa was only defined for XHTML. > > > > Now, we know there HTML parsers are quite tolerant and always try to make > the best out of broken or not 100% valid markup. > > > > My question is: Having a legacy HTML4 page, do I NEED to transform it > into a valid XHTML page to be able to add GR markup as RDFa to it? Or just > change the doctype and leave it up to the crawlers? > > > > I went through some of the sources (Google etc.) but none of them > explicitly stated the importance of a valid XHTML markup. Does anybody have > any experience wrt this matter? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Laszlo > > _______________________________________________ > > goodrelations mailing list > > goodrelations at ebusiness-unibw.org > > http://ebusiness-unibw.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goodrelations > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaumond at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 14:37:45 2011 From: chaumond at gmail.com (Julien Chaumond) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:37:45 +0200 Subject: [goodrelations] Facebook Open Graph and http://www.productontology.org In-Reply-To: References: <2090A88D-4350-4E3B-837F-D33CA0619C43@ebusiness-unibw.org> Message-ID: Hi Martin, All, Related question: can you think of a way of mapping Product Types Ontology classes (or really, any product categorization system, for example merchant-specific ones like Amazon's) to the slightly-more-specific-than-"product" Open Graph types, like "album", "book", or "movie"? When users interact with a product page, it's often not for the actual product in physical form (say, a DVD) but the abstract product it represents (a movie). Facebook Likes on these kinds of products are also much more visible on users' Info tabs. How can I best map e.g. http://www.productontology.org/id/Blu-ray_Disc and http://www.productontology.org/id/DVD to "movie"? Best, Julien On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Martin Hepp wrote: > Hi Paul, > > I just created two pages > > ? ?http://www.heppnetz.de/facebook-pto1.html (with ONE ogp:type statement from www.productontology.org) and > ? ?http://www.heppnetz.de/facebook-pto2.html (with TWO ogp:type statements, ogp:type="product" and ogp:type="Laser_printer" from www.productontology.org) > > Linter does not like two ogp:type statements :-( ("Warning: Duplicate tags -You used "type" multiple times, but it should only appear once") > > Are there any downsides of using ONLY ogp:type="pto:xyz" and omitting ogp:type="product"? > > For more powerful Facebook applications, it would be really, really good if site-owners added specific PTO types. On the other hand I fear that many may not want to omit ogp:type="product", since standard applications may then not discover that the page covers a product. > > Or am I wrong and you can recommend using PTO types without hesitation? > > > Martin > > > PS: Attached is the demo markup: > > > ? ? ? ?"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> > ? ? ? ?xmlns:og="http://ogp.me/ns#" > ? ?xmlns:fb="http://www.facebook.com/2008/fbml" > ? ? ? ?xmlns:pto="http://www.productontology.org/id/" > ? ? ? ?xmlns:gr="http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#"> > > ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ?HP Photosmart e-All-in-One Printer - D110a (OGP + GoodRelations) > ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?content="Print lab-quality photos, everyday documents, and Web > content on the fly, without Using a PC. HP ePrint and integrated wireless > make it easy to share our Photosmart e-All-in-One?D110a with multiple PCs > and print from any room in your home."/> > > > > Demo page for combining Facebook Open Graph Protocol with http://www.productontology.org > > Print lab-quality photos, everyday documents, and Web > content on the fly, without Using a PC. HP ePrint and integrated wireless > make it easy to share our Photosmart e-All-in-One?D110a with multiple PCs > and print from any room in your home. > > > > > > On Mar 17, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Martin Hepp wrote: > >> Hi Paul, >> On Mar 16, 2011, at 11:52 PM, Paul Tarjan wrote: >> >>> Great idea Martin! >>> >>> Yes, we do accept CURIEs as the og:type. Just make sure to declare your >>> namespace on the page and you're good to go. >> >> Great! >> >> Would you also tolerate TWO og:type statements? This would it make is easy to combine generic OGP types ("movie") with very specific ("Action film", "Educational film") ones so that the OGP data will be understood both by standard applications and such that honor additional specificity. >> >> Example: >> >> > xmlns:pto="http://www.productontology.org/id/" > >> >> .... >> ? ? >> ? ? >> >> You would have 300 - 600,000 very specific types with labels in up to 80 languages, so you could easily display them with the proper category instead of "other". >> >> >> Martin >> >>> Try passing your example into >>> the linter and it should just work. >>> >> Will do. >> >>> Paul >>> >>> On 3/16/11 6:24 AM, "Martin Hepp" wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all: >>>> >>>> A simple yet powerful usage of this service with the OGP may be to accept >>>> the CURIEs (compact URIs) of www.productontology.org as literal values >>>> for ogp:type, e.g. >>>> >>>> ? >>>> >>>> This would give Facebook unprecedented precision without the need to >>>> maintain the type identifiers, plus up to 100 translations for the types. >>>> >>>> >>>> Full example for >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.shopping.hp.com/product/printer/Photosmart/1/storefronts/CN731A >>>> %2523B1H >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> ? ?xmlns:og="http://ogp.me/ns#" >>>> ? ?xmlns:fb="http://www.facebook.com/2008/fbml"> >>>> >>>> ?The Rock (1996) >>>> ? >>>> ? >>>> ?>>> content="http://www.shopping.hp.com/product/printer/Photosmart/1/storefron >>>> ts/CN731A%2523B1H"/> >>>> ?>>> content="http://hpshopping.speedera.net/s7d2.scene7.com/is/image/HPShoppin >>>> g/cn731a_main?$full3_fmt$"/> >>>> ? >>>> ? >>>> ?>>> ? ? ? ?content="Print lab-quality photos, everyday documents, and Web >>>> content on the fly, without Using a PC. HP ePrint and integrated wireless >>>> make it easy to share our Photosmart e-All-in-One?D110a with multiple PCs >>>> and print from any room in your home."/> >>>> ?... >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 1, 2011, at 7:21 PM, Martin Hepp wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all: >>>>> >>>>> We are happy to release http://www.productontology.org, an >>>>> online-service >>>>> that provides class definitions for all of the ca. 300,000 types >>>>> of products or services that are contained in the 3.5 million Wikipedia >>>>> entries. >>>>> >>>>> This can be used in combination with the OGP if you add GoodRelations >>>>> (http://purl.org/goodrelations/) markup in RDFa to the body of your >>>>> page. >>>>> >>>>> In short, www.productontology.org provides for the schema level what >>>>> DBpedia >>>>> provides for the data / instance level of the Semantic Web. >>>>> >>>>> A few examples: >>>>> >>>>> Laser_printer ? http://www.productontology.org/id/Laser_printer >>>>> Manure_spreader http://www.productontology.org/id/Manure_spreader >>>>> Racing_bicycle ?http://www.productontology.org/id/Racing_bicycle >>>>> Soldering_iron ?http://www.productontology.org/id/Soldering_iron >>>>> Sweet_potato ? ?http://www.productontology.org/id/Sweet_potato >>>>> >>>>> The Product Ontology is designed to be compatible with the >>>>> GoodRelations >>>>> Ontology for e-commerce, but it can be used for any other purpose that >>>>> requires >>>>> class definitions for specific objects. >>>>> >>>>> All Wikipedia translations are preserved, so you have up to 100 >>>>> translations per label. >>>>> >>>>> It would be worthwhile to think about how this can be used directly >>>>> within the >>>>> OGP for identifying more specific types of page content. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Background informations and FAQs: >>>>> http://www.productontology.org/#faq >>>>> >>>>> Examples in RDF/XML, Turtle, and RDFa: >>>>> http://www.productontology.org/#examples >>>>> >>>>> Any feedback is highly appreciated! >>>>> >>>>> Acknowledgments: Thanks to Axel Polleres, Andreas Radinger, Alex Stolz, >>>>> and >>>>> Giovanni Tummarello for very valuable feedback. >>>>> >>>>> The work on The Product Types Ontology has been supported by the German >>>>> Federal >>>>> Ministry of Research (BMBF) by a grant under the KMU Innovativ program >>>>> as part >>>>> of the Intelligent Match project (FKZ 01IS10022B). >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> martin hepp >>>>> e-business & web science research group >>>>> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen >>>>> >>>>> e-mail: ?hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org >>>>> phone: ? +49-(0)89-6004-4217 >>>>> fax: ? ? +49-(0)89-6004-4620 >>>>> www: ? ? http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) >>>>> ? ?http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) >>>>> skype: ? mfhepp >>>>> twitter: mfhepp >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> goodrelations mailing list >>> goodrelations at ebusiness-unibw.org >>> http://ebusiness-unibw.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goodrelations >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> goodrelations mailing list >> goodrelations at ebusiness-unibw.org >> http://ebusiness-unibw.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goodrelations > > From bojan.jovicic at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 18:57:10 2011 From: bojan.jovicic at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Qm9qYW4gSm92acSNacSH?=) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:57:10 +0200 Subject: [goodrelations] Facebook Open Graph and http://www.productontology.org In-Reply-To: References: <2090A88D-4350-4E3B-837F-D33CA0619C43@ebusiness-unibw.org> Message-ID: Dear dr Martin & OGP team, I have one potentially noob question: why this ontology is using something like shorter hierarchy (e.g. parent of an printer is not Printer, and then the parent of it is not something like output device, but rather abstract ProductOrService)? This is just general and totally abstract question for my understanding. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: