1 / 20

OWL Application Profile for CSW

OWL Application Profile for CSW. Dr Kristin Stock Allworlds Geothinking , UK Centre for Geospatial Science, University of Nottingham, UK EDINA, UK. Introduction. COMPASS Project ( http://compass.edina.ac.uk/ ) Created a geospatial knowledge infrastructure, allowing:

montana-bond
Download Presentation

OWL Application Profile for CSW

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. OWL Application Profile for CSW Dr Kristin Stock AllworldsGeothinking, UK Centre for Geospatial Science, University of Nottingham, UK EDINA, UK

  2. Introduction • COMPASS Project (http://compass.edina.ac.uk/) • Created a geospatial knowledge infrastructure, allowing: • semantic discovery of scientific resources and • visualisation and inference. • So we needed a semantic registry. • OGC Pending Doc 09-010

  3. The Goal • Semantic expressiveness and inference • Syntactic interoperability with other registries (geospatial and Digital Library) • Scientific resources: • Publications • Geospatial data sets • Geospatial web services

  4. Some content best suited to ontologies (require reasoning, not in registry standards)... • Domain concepts; • Semantic description of scientific resources; • Semantic description of scientific knowledge in the resources; • Web service semantics.

  5. Some content best suited to registries (in existing RIMs): • Textual descriptions; • Publication binding; • Web service specifications and bindings; BUT... • The latter already in web service ontologies.

  6. So... • Did not want some content in registry, some in ontologies. • Decided to put everything in ontologies. But how?

  7. The problem • Need to keep OWL ontologies in OWL files to allow easy reasoning. • Did not want to duplicate content or have to do live conversion between ontology and registry information models. • So, created an ontology-registry.

  8. What is an Ontology-Registry? • Architecture is designed as an interface on top of OWL files, so reasoning can be done on native file formats with existing tools. • Generic model across domains. • Registry = ontologies; ontologies = registry.

  9. Information Model • Uses RDF and OWL • Adopts RDF/OWL information model as closely as possible so retain ontology structure.

  10. What about ebRIM? • The ontology-registry is not an extension package to WRS. • Why? • Would need to convert between ebRIM and OWL between interface and file store. • The models are quite different. • Querying and results handling more difficult. • Both are meta-models. • Unnecessary extra processing.

  11. A new Application Profile • The ontology-registry is an OWL Application Profile for CSW. • Implements CSW, not WRS. • Can handle any RDF or OWL content.

  12. User Interface The Ontology- Registry CSW Interface Knowledge Management Adapter Z39.50 Adapter OAI-PMH Adapter Inference Engine Knowledge Management Middleware Z39.50 Interface OAI-PMH Interface Digital Library Repository Digital Library Repository OWL Ontologies

  13. Queryable and Returnable Properties (1) • Uses Dublin Core specific metadata items. • Adds bounding box: • App profile includes OWL definition of bounding box. • Adds rdfs:Resource, which can specialise to anything in RDF or OWL.

  14. Queryable and Returnable Properties (2) • Implementers must map their ontologies to the queryable and returnable properties. • You retrieve an ontology in its OWL form using the queryable and returnable properties.

  15. Querying • In addition to FILTER, adds SPARQL querying. • Both available for request and response. • Specify query language in request. • Examples included in document.

  16. Interfaces • Implements CSW interfaces. • Extended to include: • SPARQL querying • Reasoning: • Satisfiability, Subsumption, Equivalence, Disjointedness, Consistency, InstanceChecking (for entailment). • In GetRecords or DescribeRecord.

  17. It’s only a meta model! • No indication of the content of the ontologies. • We implemented a series of ontologies (web service, domain, application). • It is up to the provider of the service to map the semantics of their own ontologies to the queryable and returnable properties, except rdfs:Resource

  18. Questions or Comments? or contact me: kristin.stock@nottingham.ac.uk

More Related