[Orechem] Document ontology and instance prototypes

[Carl Lagoze]

Hi all:

I just put up on the wiki at http://services.nsdl.org/trac/oreChem/wiki/DocumentOntology 
  the results of a good bit of work I've done on a proposed document  
ontology for the project.  The text below is the guts of the wiki  
entry.  I realize the work is not yet complete, but I think it gives a  
reasonable working model of what the PSU folks should use to represent  
info extracted from documents (I used the spec sent by Lee GIles as my  
requirements document).  As I say in the wiki text, the model is ORE  
compatible, which I consider quite important.

I'd work more on this but am leaving for vacation on Thursday through  
August 16 (no email contact) and wanted to get this out.  Flame at  
will but I won't respond till return.

Now onto my N other deadlines before leaving.

Carl



PPrototype document ontology and instance

I've attached to this wiki page three files that show my proposal thus  
far:

orechem.owl (probobly should be rdfs) - This is a set of vocabulary  
terms that I had to invent for the ontology. Virtually all are  
specializations (subclasses or subproperties) of terms from other  
vocabularies.
orechem-article.xml - An rdf instance file illustrating a rather  
complete example of the use of orechem.owl and lots of other  
vocabularies. I models an article in a journal. To do that it uses  
vocabulary terms from lots of namespaces including:
Dublin Core elements and terms
foaf
ore
chemaxiom
bibo
vcard
orechem-article.svg - A graphical display (From ISAVIZ) of orechem- 
article.xml. Lots of triples here so you'll have to zoom in.
You will note that the example is compatible with the ORE notion of an  
Aggregation (and describing Resource Map), modulo a few missing  
metadata elements. This was obviously a priority for me since we want  
to fit into this generic space.

Also, probably much to Nico's chagrin, this is all an RDF-based rather  
than OWL-based model. Sorry, but too much of the world (e.g., DC, ORE,  
bibo) does not fit in the OWL space, but in the more generic RDF  
space. We do loose inferencing ability, but personally I don't see  
that as important until triple stores scale-up to that task.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.openarchives.org/pipermail/orechem/attachments/20090728/32cb172c/attachment.htm