DLM1: Mike – this is the lunch discussion. I think this leaves open the issue of whether we have the final ontology (namespace c) refers to A:A_concept1 and B_concept2 within it or if it.
NN1 You may want to mention that mappings in this case are directional; it matters which ontology is the source and which is the target.
DLM2: I think this sentence and the point is best made later where we defend it with an example. MFU: yes, I think that might be out of scope. I recommend that we leave it here, for completeness, as it is relevant and important but that we say it is out of scope for further detailed consideration.]
DLM3: I do not think we want to give an example that is a datatype as a motivator. I think the datatype point is made more clearly by noting the units which I have done following the first example.
DLM4: This is the identical strategy as employed by UML and OCL, where ocl – object constraint language – is basically fol and is used to capture what can not be captured in uml.
MFU1: Refer to note on n-place relations here.
MFU2: May want to formally define what "preserving intended meaning" is.
NN2 : I would take out the point about English: the solution proposed below -- elaborating the semantics -- is still not going to help someone who does not speak English. [CM -- I think we should leave it in; as I read it, the point is only that the word 'Animal' alone at best yields only a hint of the intended semantics to an English speaker. (Note the italicized word 'might'.) I think that is a fair point.]
DLM-MFU-NN-1: DLM – comment – we should be careful not to encourage people to model a
lot information that is not expected to be useful. For example, many people do not like using CYC’s upper level
because it is viewed as having too many upper level concepts that “clutter” an
application when they are all inherited. We probably want to draw a fine line here.]
NN:
Another point: sometimes having MORE actually impedes mappings. If I don't
specify the format for a date field, it mighht be easier to map to an ontology
where a corresponding date field has range xsd:Date than if I had defined
my date as a String.
MFU4: I think there is a problem with this as an introduction. There are various situations/contexts/use-cases when one may wish to map ontologies. The example you use is just one, and one that as it happens, is not very well motivated. This princilpe needs to be motivated. First say, hey, there are times when you need to do mapping. I'm not sure where, but it might be a good idea to set out various situations when ontology-2-ontology mapping are desired. Here, we might distinguish interoperability from integration examples.
MFU5: This is true, but seems a red herring here.
MFU6: Why is it useful? Is it important to create the mappings? Why create the mappings, why import a related term and then have to bother to create semantic mappings? Elaborate on the why of mapping in this context.
MFU7: Expand this section to include various use cases for when an ontology to ontology mapping might be needed or useful. Distinguish interoperability from integration use cases, perhaps. Then, we might want to shorten what is below, and just a brief section about the kinds of mappings. This would be elaborated on in much more detail in the main ‘narrative’ below. Here, you woud probably skip OWL syntax. I grayed out the text below, and used it as a starting point for the narrative. We need to come back to here and replace the gray text with a suitable summary of the key points. It might juust be a few sentences, or somethigne a bit more elaborate. Given this is the main meat of the note, it bears repeating for emphasis.
MFU8: If you are going to have an example with a restriction, then you need to have a real example with all the details spelled out, and describe it in English first before giving cod.
MFU9: What is missing, is any motivation for why you would want to import a term from another ontology, and them map it to a term in an ontology you already have. What use case does this fit in? Mapping is a kind of abstract use case, why map?
DLM5: Essentially all of the equivalence constructs and subclass, subproperty, and instance relationships may be viewed as mapping vocabulary but since one could subclass on restriction statements, then all of the vocabulary could be considered useful for mapping. MIKE RESPONDS: this is true, I suggest we make this point somewhere in the detailed examples, possible when introducing the first example of using the more general constucts for mapping, or after we have shown some examples , we can say: by the way, what we really are doing here is using all the OWL constructs, in conjunction with either equivalentFoo or subFoo mapping constructs. All mapping constucts must use equivalentFoo or subFoo, and they may or may not use the other constructs as well.
MFU10: It makes sense to have this also be ontA, though you might have meant it to be OntB. I can't tell.
MFU11: This is somewhat arbitrary. it seems like these are more core, but are they? Do we want to say anything about that? Should we add to this disjoint and differentFrom?
MFU12: I think this is interesting and worthwhile to point out , but it may best be shortened, and de-emphasized a bit?
MFU13: This is repetitive, need to redo this.
MFU14: This might not be true, if you take a broad view of mapping, you can say two classes are disjoint, or whatnot... HELP: what do you think?
MFU15: This paragraph has good content, but is a bit wordy and hard to follow. Need to tighten up.
DLM6: Are we using owl full or are we just saying that we provide owl specifications as an appendix.