[esip-semanticweb] posted initial version of ToolMatch data model

[Eric Rozell]

The SPARQL would be really simple assuming we use some level of OWL 2 reasoning.  I think the use case should extend beyond "data accessibility" to include any attribute of a dataset.  There are probably some "explanation" tools out there that could handle all of these use cases.   In your example:

SPARQL query for what tools can draw a map of a dataset:

Assume you have a dataset URI (call it, myprefix:My_Dataset_URI)

PREFIX ...
SELECT    ?tool    WHERE    {
    myprefix:My_Dataset_URI    toolmatch:mappedBy    ?tool    .
    //alternatively:    ?tool    toolmatch:maps    myprefix:My_Dataset_URI   .
}

Explanation for matching tool:

Assume the SPARQL query finds the URI of a tool that matches (call it, yourprefix:Your_Tool_URI)

We can construct a service that explains individual triples, such as:

PREFIX ...
EXPLAIN    {
    myprefix:My_Dataset_URI    toolmatch:mappedBy    yourprefix:Your_Tool_URI    .
}

The result of this might be some provenance information that says (in provenance RDF form...):
"This tool (yourprefix:Your_Tool_URI) matches this dataset (myprefix:My_Dataset_URI) because the dataset has DAP accessibility and has a latitude variable and has a longitude variable."

The user would then have some starting point for knowing how to use the tool with the dataset.

Cheers,
-Eric

On Mar 1, 2012, at 3:09 PM, Lynnes, Christopher S. (GSFC-6102) wrote:

> Hey, Eric, thx for cleaning up the model!  When I get a free moment, I'll see if I can add some of our own instances to it.  Then I think it would be good to generate some sample SPARQL that satisfies the key requirements in our use case, i.e., for a given dataset, what tools can draw a map of it (and does it have to be accessed in a specific way for that to work)?
> 
> On Feb 29, 2012, at 1:03 AM, Eric Rozell wrote:
> 
>> Hi Chris (and others),
>> 
>> I took a pass at the ontology.  Namely, I cleaned up some domain and range restrictions.  I also added some cool features of OWL 2 reasoning that should make this more "Semantic Webby".  I've documented this here: 
>> http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/ToolMatch_Proposal_0.2
>> 
>> Hopefully the CMAP images help...
>> 
>> Moving forward on this, once we settle on a model, it would be great to start building a Web service where people can upload tools and datasets and identify new data attributes of relevance.  After upload transactions, the OWL 2 reasoner would reprocess the data, and data collection / tool compatibility can be queried from an additional Web service.
>> 
>> --Eric
>> 
>> On Feb 28, 2012, at 2:47 PM, Lynnes, Christopher S. (GSFC-6102) wrote:
>> 
>>> I know folks won't have time to examine before the telecon to look at it, but FWIW, here is my initial attempt in Turtle and RDF/XML.
>>> 
>>> http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/ToolMatch_Model
>>> 
>>> I'd like to use one of the upcoming Semantic Web telecons to go over the model if possible.
>>> --
>>> Dr. Christopher Lynnes     NASA/GSFC, Code 610.2    phone: 301-614-5185
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> esip-semanticweb mailing list
>>> esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org
>>> http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-semanticweb
>>> 
>> 
> 
> --
> Dr. Christopher Lynnes     NASA/GSFC, Code 610.2    phone: 301-614-5185
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.esipfed.org/pipermail/esip-semanticweb/attachments/20120301/7273556a/attachment.html>