Hi All,
For those of you interested in mappings and ontologies, I created an
updated version as of today of CF and GCMD in OWL.
They are available at:
http://marinemetadata.org/cf and http://
marinemetadata.org/gcmd, as well as new mapping file that imports
both ontologies. This one should be downloaded locally and be open
with VINE. Also a print screen in VINE was created with one example.
Note: The GCDM OWL file encodes all the tree hierarchy as a unique
resource, this way we will avoid possible confussion with repeated
variables.
Could be nice if we can coordinate among those of us that are
interested, in creating such mappings.
Best Regards,
Luis
On Apr 7, 2006, at 10:52 AM, Luis Bermudez wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> On Apr 6, 2006, at 3:29 PM, John Caron wrote:
>
>> Hi Luis:
>>
>> Luis Bermudez wrote:
>>> Dear Roy and John,
>>> There are a lot of issues when we want to perform mappings
>>> between vocabularies that are continuously evolving, for example
>>> GCMD, CF and BODC. OWL is a very good mechanism to express
>>> mappings, but the vocabularies are not originally in OWL. This is
>>> the reason that we have some tools at MMI to do an automatic
>>> conversion of this vocabularies to OWL.
>>
>> So are you harvesting the CF at http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/eaton/
>> cf-metadata/standard_name.xml and converting to http://
>> marinemetadata.org/2005/02/cf, or ?
>
> Yes
>
>>
>>> That way we have them all harmonized (expressed in the same
>>> language/format) and we can resolve semantic heterogeneities in a
>>> better fashion.
>>
>> Can you explain what tools are needed to make these translation
>> (or point me to some URL)? Do you need an OWL reasoning engine or
>> can something simpler be used? Are there any working examples?
>
> No, you don't need any reasoning engine to create the ontologies. I
> use http://marinemetadata.org/examples/mmihostedwork/
> ontologieswork/voc2owl.
>
>
>
>>
>> What does the OWL need to look like? Are the files at:
>>
>> http://marinemetadata.org/2005/02/cf
>> http://marinemetadata.org/2005/02/gcmd
>>
>> examples of what is needed?
>
> Yes; however. GCMD has problems they way is currently encoded,
> since some of the variables can appear in one ore more hierarchy
> tree (as explain by Roy in a previous email). We have to find how
> to deal with this issue.
>
>>
>>
>>> I just make publicly available the plan of a strategy we have in
>>> mind at MMI. It is here:
>>> http://marinemetadata.org/examples/mmihostedwork/ontologieswork/
>>> watchdogstrategy/strategyt I have made some tests and look at a
>>> more concrete framework to allow the representation and mapping
>>> of these terms by using SKOS : http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/.
>>> John and Roy, maybe we can talk in more detail what are your
>>> ideas and make a plan to move this forward. I'll be glad to know
>>> if the MMI strategy sounds reasonable and if more people are
>>> interested in participating.
>>
>> I would be happy to fit my efforts into your larger efforts, if
>> possible. I will neeed to understand the requirements better,
>> before I know for sure.
>
> I think we can start with CF and GCMD, not worrying at the moment
> about their continuous changing. Concrete actions:
> - Agree on the properties that relate both of them. In the MMI
> workshop we used : narrowerThan, sameAs and broaderThan
> - Have a updated version of CF and GCMD in an ontology.
> - Think what is the best way to solve the GCMD- hierarchy problem
> - Start doing the mappings. We can use VINE for that purpose http://
> marinemetadata.org/examples/mmihostedwork/ontologieswork/vine
> -publish the mappings.
>
> -Then of course we would like to make this a little bit more
> operational, like having a real time representation of CF and GCMD
> keywords in an ontology as well as their mappings.
>
> Best Regards.
>
> Luis
>
>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Luis
>>> On Apr 6, 2006, at 12:14 AM, Roy Lowry wrote:
>>>> Hello John,
>>>>
>>>> Mapping CF Standard names to GCMD Parameter Valids to the public
>>>> domain 'variable' level shouldn't be a problem as the GCMD
>>>> vocabulary is clearly a discovery vocabulary. The issues Bryan
>>>> is eluding to result from trying to map a usage vocabulary (one
>>>> containing terms that fully describe a data value) because vital
>>>> information for the mapping (e.g. whether a value is a mean or a
>>>> standard deviation) are held in CF fields other than the
>>>> Standard Name.
>>>>
>>>> Are you aware of the MMI vocabulary mapping workshop that was
>>>> held in Boulder last August? CF was one of the vocabs used, but
>>>> the work really only scratched the surface looking at maybe half
>>>> a dozen terms. There should still be an OWL version of CF on
>>>> the MMI site (as well as GCMD), but this will a snapshot that is
>>>> now well out of date. There is however an open source tool to
>>>> convert the XML to OWL (voc2OWL) and a very neat mapping tool
>>>> (VINE). The resulting map is an OWL file that can be used with
>>>> web services also provided by MMI to build a thesaurus server.
>>>> I would strongly recommend their approach.
>>>>
>>>> The one issue with the GCMD parameter valids that was never
>>>> properly sorted at Boulder is that the mapping was done to GCMD
>>>> variable terms without their overlying term hierarchy, which
>>>> took no account of the fact that EARTH SCIENCE > Biosphere >
>>>> Animal Taxonomy > Fish and EARTH SCIENCE > Oceans > Marine
>>>> Biology > Fish are different. I know Luis Bermudez of MMI was
>>>> looking at this issue, but don't know how far he got.
>>>>
>>>> Building an ontology mapping between CF and GCMD was on my
>>>> agenda for later this year to provide the capability to NDG for
>>>> entering a CF Standard Name into a discovery portal and finding
>>>> DIFs marked up using GCMD parameter valids. But I'm more than
>>>> happy for someone else to make a start and would of course be
>>>> happy to help once the time slot I've allocated for later this
>>>> year comes around.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, Roy.
>>>>
>>>>>>> John Caron <caron at unidata.ucar.edu
>>>>>>> <mailto:caron at unidata.ucar.edu>> 4/5/2006 8:51:15 pm >>>
>>>>
>>>> Is the standard name table in XML at:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/eaton/cf-metadata/standard_name.xml
>>>> being kept resonably up-to-date?
>>>> I'm thinking about using it to map to, eg DIF vocabulary. Has
>>>> anyone else done any mappings like that?
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CF-metadata mailing list
>>>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu <mailto:CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
>>>> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC
>>>> is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents
>>>> of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC
>>>> unless
>>>> it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to
>>>> NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CF-metadata mailing list
>>>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu <mailto:CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
>>>> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>>> ---------------------------------------
>>> Luis Bermudez Ph.D.
>>> Software Engineer
>>> MMI Liaison - http://marinemetadata.org
>>> bermudez at mbari.org <mailto:bermudez at mbari.org>
>>> Tel: (831) 775-1929
>>> Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20060407/cd5a79c7/attachment.html>
Received on Fri Apr 07 2006 - 17:54:59 BST
