[esip-semanticweb] Mapping between CLEAN and SWEET or GCMD

Tue Apr 2 05:25:51 EDT 2013

For those of you doing GCMD mappings: Where are you representing the GCMD terms, in an internal ontology, or an externally visible one?  Are you creating your own ontology of GCMD terms or using GCMD's resource?  

Perhaps we could settle on a common set of public URIs for GCMD terms. GCMD is publishing OWL for parameters at this point (http://gcmdservices.gsfc.nasa.gov/static/kms/sciencekeywords/sciencekeywords.owl, Yay!), but in that form it doesn't appear useful, as all it has are unique 'terms' (IDs) with no prefLabels or mappings. Maybe I'm missing something ...  The rdf file alongside it has mappings and looks like SKOS. I'll try to contact someone from GCMD to ask about these directories, unless members on this list have experience with it already, or are on that team....

And Beth, this may be better as an offline discussion, but I seek clarification on the sentence "The terms will denote objects and/or classes of objects that are represented in the ontology."  Meaning the GCMD terms (in the GCMD ontology) will map to the objects/classes in your high-precision ontology?

It would indeed be nice if we ended up taking compatible approaches.

John

On Apr 2, 2013, at 00:12, Beth Huffer <beth at lingualogica.net> wrote:

> We're working on the mapping problem at the ASDC as well. We're developing a very robust, high-precision Earth Sciences ontology and will want to map it to vocabularies such as GCMD because, among other things, we hope the mappings will enable people to use our tools and our data using their own, familiar vocabulary, without having to become familiar with our particular vocabulary. My strategy, at this point, is to create an ontology of terms which will have classes such as "GCMDCategory", "GCMDTerm", with individual terms as instances.  The terms will denote objects and/or classes of objects that are represented in the ontology.  I've adopted this particular approach because it seems amenable to our objective of using an ontology to support better data discovery, data fusion, and data analytics and will allow us to map multiple vocabularies into a single ontology. 
> 
> I'd be interested in comparing approaches in cases where others have done mappings.  
> 
> Beth Huffer
> Consultant, NASA LaRC
> Atmospheric Science Data Center
> 720-235-2295 (cell)
> 443-438-5433 (office)
> 
> 
> On 4/1/13 3:52 PM, Marshall X Ma wrote:
>> We were working a bit on the mapping between two SKOS vocabularies, namely CLEAN and GCMD, and we focused on the instance to instance mapping.
>> Personally I was thinking to focus on the mapping between instances of ‘skos:Concept’ and instances of subclasses of ‘owl:Class’, just do not want to make myself confused between instance and class.
>>  
>> Some resources w.r.t. this issue, perhaps you already have them.
>> A document discussing OWL and SKOS: http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/skos-and-owl/master.html
>> And there is a tool that can covert OWL ontologies to SKOS vocabularies: http://owl.cs.manchester.ac.uk/owltoskos/
>>  
>> Thanks,
>> --Marshall
>>  
>> From: Steve Richard [mailto:steve.richard at azgs.az.gov] 
>> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 00:09
>> To: 'John Graybeal'
>> Cc: 'Marshall X Ma'; esip-semanticweb at rtpnet.org
>> Subject: RE: [esip-semanticweb] Mapping between CLEAN and SWEET or GCMD
>>  
>> I haven’t delved into the problem recently, but I think the current trick is ‘punning’, in which an element it treated as either a class or an instance depending on the context.
>> steve
>>  
>> Stephen M Richard
>> Arizona Geological Survey
>> 416 W. congress #100
>> Tucson, AZ
>> AZGS: 520-770-3500
>> Office: 520-209-4127
>> FAX: 520-770-3505
>>  
>> From: John Graybeal [mailto:jgraybeal at ucsd.edu] 
>> Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 3:40 AM
>> To: steve.richard at azgs.az.gov
>> Cc: 'Marshall X Ma'; esip-semanticweb at rtpnet.org
>> Subject: Re: [esip-semanticweb] Mapping between CLEAN and SWEET or GCMD
>>  
>> Marshall, Steve, all,
>>  
>> Did you all ever come up with a best practice for bridging the SKOS-OWL divide, as discussed below?  Back in the OWL 1.0 days I know this was, like, unbridgeable, but with 2.0 I think the experts were talking about creating a relation that appropriately related SKOS terms to OWL concepts. But then I had to pay attention to other things....
>>  
>> John
>>  
>>  
>> On Nov 2, 2012, at 17:00, steve richard <steve.richard at azgs.az.gov> wrote:
>>  
>> 
>> The SKOS-OWL is particularly interesting to me (instance vs. class). I’ve wrestled with this trying to figure out how to bind the CGI GeoScience vocabularies (http://resource.geosciml.org/201202/) with OWL (e.g. SimpleLithology2012 with CGI_Lithology.owl).
>> The issue emerges again in an ontology for geologic map unit integration I’ve been working on. If you’re at the Geological Society of America Meeting in Charlotte next week, come and visit my poster
>> Monday Nov 5, Charlotte Convention Center, Hall B, Poster Booth Number: 186. “A GEOLOGIC UNIT SCHEME FOR REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP INTEGRATION”
>>  
>> steve
>>  
>> From: esip-semanticweb-bounces at lists.esipfed.org [mailto:esip-semanticweb-bounces at lists.esipfed.org] On Behalf Of Marshall X Ma
>> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 4:30 PM
>> To: esip-semanticweb at rtpnet.org
>> Subject: [esip-semanticweb] Mapping between CLEAN and SWEET or GCMD
>>  
>> We want to test the mapping between non-specialist vocabularies and specialist vocabularies. A good example can be the mapping between CLEAN vocabulary and SWEET ontology or GCMD keywords.
>>  
>> Anyone has done/thought this work before or, any ideas on the following questions? Thanks.
>>  
>> * CLEAN is a non-specialist vocabulary for climate and energy
>> ** ref: http://cleanet.org/clean/about/climate_energy_.html
>> ** A SKOS encoding of CLEAN vocabulary seralized in turtle format:https://scm.escience.rpi.edu/svn/public/projects/gcis/branches/initial_rdf/skos/clean.ttl
>>  
>> * [Question 1 ] Mapping between CLEAN vocabulary and SWEET?
>> ** We have experience on mapping between two skos vocabularies: using skos:broadMatch, skos:narrowMatch, etc.
>> ** SWEET is in OWL encoding
>> *** Comparison between a skos concept and an owl class
>> *** Anyone has experience on mapping between skos and owl?
>>  
>> * [Question 2] Or, we can try to map between CLEAN vocabulary and GCMD keywords?
>> ** GCMD keywords has its version 7.0 in SKOS encoding:http://gcmd.gsfc.nasa.gov/Connect/docs/kms/KeywordManagementServiceAPI.pdf
>>  
>>  
>> -- Marshall
>>  
>> Xiaogang (Marshall) Ma
>>  
>> Postdoctoral Research Associate
>> Tetherless World Constellation
>> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
>> 110 8th Street, Troy, NY 12180, USA
>> E-mail: max7 at rpi.edu
>> Homepage: https://sites.google.com/site/xgmaitc
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> esip-semanticweb mailing list
>> esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org
>> http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-semanticweb
>>  
>> 
>> ----------------
>> John Graybeal    <mailto:jgraybeal at ucsd.edu>     phone: 858-534-2162
>> Product Manager
>> Ocean Observatories Initiative Cyberinfrastructure Project: http://ci.oceanobservatories.org
>> Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> esip-semanticweb mailing list
>> esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org
>> http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-semanticweb
> 

----------------
John Graybeal    <mailto:jgraybeal at ucsd.edu>     phone: 858-534-2162
Product Manager
Ocean Observatories Initiative Cyberinfrastructure Project: http://ci.oceanobservatories.org
Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.esipfed.org/pipermail/esip-semanticweb/attachments/20130402/96db89ba/attachment-0001.html>