<div dir="auto">Hans,<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Thanks for your time in replying me. I've know about the standard a time ago and I've became very interested. I'd like to put an effort into alignement of what I use as 'internal' representation, please read the first part of this doc:<div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><br></div><a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VrvIV4rXyUyGl5jvDAgsEV4GRxX_NvMICgkdnbvj9DQ/edit?usp=drivesdk">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VrvIV4rXyUyGl5jvDAgsEV4GRxX_NvMICgkdnbvj9DQ/edit?usp=drivesdk</a></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">and your models. At first sight the standard looks huge and the examples I've found are very specialized. But you say it may be used to render models of many domains. What I'd like to know is how much 'interoperable' it is respect other Web standards (beyond its core) and which applications may consume it if I tailor my 'Ports' to this kind of ontology.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Please read the last posts on this thread because previously there was confusion regarding the scope of what I'd like to do and Semantic Web in general.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I'm also attaching the new doc as a PDF (Notes.pdf) if you have trouble for reading the link and an older (fuzzy) doc (Datastore.pdf) which may serve as an index. Both are a (very early) work in progress and I apologize for their quality or even for their eventual value.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Best,</div><div dir="auto">Sebastián.<br><div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Feb 15, 2017 7:38 AM, "HansTeijgeler" <<a href="mailto:hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl">hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<tt>Hi Sebastian,<br>
<br>
Martynas describes what we are doing. <br>
<br>
We<br>
</tt>
<ol>
<li><tt>defined a <a href="http://15926.org/topics/data-model/index.htm" target="_blank">generic
conceptual data model</a> of 201 entity data types;<br>
</tt></li>
<li><tt>created a <a href="http://data.15926.org/rdl/" target="_blank">reference
data library</a> with 15000 standard core classes, where
required with local extensions thereof (e.g. supplier catalogs,
standards bodies);<br>
</tt></li>
<li><tt>created <a href="http://15926.org/15926_template_specs.php" target="_blank">180 generic
templates</a>, using entity types from that data model, to
express small chunks of information;</tt></li>
<li><tt>declare all OOIs (Objects Of Interest) by typing them with
an entity type of the data model and a reference class from
the library;<br>
</tt></li>
<li><tt>map data from the proprietary format of the various
applications/databases to specialized templates, defining
those specialized templates with the applicable reference
data;</tt></li>
<li><tt>store these declared OOIs and template instances in one or
more RDF triple stores or quad stores that can be federated
for SPARQL queries;<br>
</tt></li>
<li><tt>time stamp all declared OOIs and all template instances
with the effective date-time and, if no longer valid, with the
deprecation date-time.</tt></li>
</ol>
<tt>Doing this the lifecycle information of a process plant, from
comceptual design to operations and maintenance, can be
integrated. </tt><br>
<tt>Since the data model is generic, with a proper reference data
set the above can be used for anything else, e.g. airplane, ship,
car fleet, organization, and natural objects.</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>The source of this information is in the applications and
systems that are used throughout the lifetime of the facility.
These need an import/export adapter.</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>Note, however, that this integration can only be done in
case the information is made as explicit as possible (and
affordable), without shortcuts that leave out OOIs that are
involved in other information.</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>Read more at </tt><tt><a href="http://15926.org" target="_blank">http://15926.org</a></tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>Use of the data model, reference data and template
specifications is free under GNU license.</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>Regards,</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>Hans</tt><br>
<hr size="2" width="100%"><div class="elided-text">On 14-2-2017 20:20, Martynas Jusevičius
wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Sebastian,
I think it is useful to think about the merge operation between datasets.
Here I mean a "physical" merge, where records with the same
identifiers become augmented with more data, when multiple datasets
are merged together. A "logical", or "semantic" merge, with vocabulary
mappings etc., comes on top of that.
So if you take the relational or XML models, there is no generic way
to do that. With RDF, there is: you simply concatenate the datasets,
because they have a stable structure (triples) and built-in global
identifiers (URIs).
That said, you should try approaching things from another end: start
building a small but concrete solution and solve problems one by one,
instead of overthinking/reinventing the top-down architecture. Until
you do that, you will probably not get relevant advice on these
mailing lists.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Sebastian Samaruga <a class="m_-5583053460784049873moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ssamarug@gmail.com" target="_blank"><ssamarug@gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Sorry for me being so ignorant. But what could be called 'semantic' (in the
sense of 'meaning', I suppose) for the current frameworks, at least the
couple I know, available for ontologies of some kind if they could assert
between their instances which statements and resources are equivalent (being
them in a different language/encoding or different 'contextual' terms for
the same subjects for example).
Another important lack of 'semantics' is ordering (temporal or whatsoever)
where a statement or resource should be treated at least in relation to
their previous or following elements.
If my last posts where so blurry is because I try to address some of this
issues, besides others, trying no to fall in the promise that adhering to
one format will free us all of any interoperability hassles. Remember a
similar promise from XML: "All we have to do is share DTDs and
interoperate". I'll still trying to give the format a twist (RDF Quads) but
I'll publish a Google Document open for comments.
Best,
Sebastián.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div>