|
|
| Re: [Ontology v0.6] Validity [message #3525 is a reply to message #3522] |
Mon, 24 March 2025 15:02   |
Larissa Zhuchyi
Messages: 66
Registered: November 2022
|
Member |
|
|
Dear Mathias
Validity indeed appeared in the wrong namespace in the ontology version 0.6 downloadable at [1].
This is fixed in the latest version of ontology uploaded in the cloud for the working group and will be published in the version 0.7.
> http://ontology.railml.org/railml3#Validity seems to be meant for time table, not for general validity range usage.
The hint on how to use Validity class is given by rdfs:range and rdfs:domain of property hasValidity, namespace of which is also fixed in the latest version of ontology uploaded in the cloud for the working group and will be published in the version 0.7.
Another hint on how to use Validity class is the annotation seen in the downloadable file of ontology skos:note pointing to https://wiki3.railml.org/wiki/RTM:isValid.
tt:validity [2] is given in ontology as https://ontology.railml.org/#ValidityTT. The "global" prefix railml3 is used in the version 0.6 of ontology downloadable at [1] therefore the name of element from XSD was changed (Validity (from timetable XSD schema) ---> ValidityTT in ontology).
Since the working group decided at meeting 2025-03-24 to keep for now only railML3 in the ontology, it makes no problem to introduce distinct prefixes for RTM, TT, IS, IL and RS to eliminate confusion. Bugfixes (of e.g. wrong namespace) will also make ontology less confusing.
> I would propose to make NetworkResource a subclass of TemporalFeature of the time ontology: https://www.w3.org/2006/time#
This seem to contradict the ticket filed for RTM 1.6 https://development.railml.org/railml/railtopomodel/-/issues /14 , however can be considered for CO:state [3] of railML 3.3 when adding it to the ontology.
What are the opinions of community?
[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/
[2] https://wiki3.railml.org/wiki/TT:validity
[3] https://wiki3.railml.org/wiki/CO:state
Sincerely,
Larissa Zhuchyi – Ontology Researcher
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [Ontology v0.6] Validity [message #3588 is a reply to message #3586] |
Wed, 23 April 2025 22:02 |
Mathias Vanden Auweele
Messages: 28
Registered: February 2025
Location: Brussels
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Quote:> I would propose to make NetworkResource a subclass of TemporalFeature of the time ontology: https://www.w3.org/2006/time#
This seem to contradict the ticket filed for RTM 1.6 https://development.railml.org/railml/railtopomodel/-/issues /14 , however can be considered for CO:state [3] of railML 3.3 when adding it to the ontology.
I think that ticket is a very bad idea. But I think it's unrelated to my comment about introducing the time ontology in the railML ontology. Currently, we define the class "Validity" which has a relation "hasValidity" with "NetworkRessource". By making "NetworkRessource" a subclass of time:TemporalEntity (sorry I used the word "TemporalFeature" in my first post but that wasn't correct), we allow the use of the time properties such as "hasBeginning" and "hasEnd".
A construct query that constructs netelements would then look like this:
CONSTRUCT {
?netelement_iri a rtm:RTM_NetElement;
railml3:hasLengthValue ?length_decimal;
rtm:isNetworkResourceOf bnd:_networklevel_1_micro;
time:hasBeginning ?valid_from_iri ;
time:hasEnd ?valid_to_iri .
?valid_from_iri a time:Instant;
time:inXSDDate ?valid_from_datetime.
?valid_to_iri a time:Instant;
time:inXSDDate ?valid_to_datetime.
}
As Rémi pointed out, it is also what ERA has done for the RINF ontology.
Mathias Vanden Auweele
Railway data freelancer
https://matdata.eu
Brussels, Belgium
|
|
|
|
| Re: [Ontology v0.6] Validity [message #3598 is a reply to message #3588] |
Tue, 29 April 2025 19:17 |
Milan Wölke
Messages: 181
Registered: April 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Mathias,
can u please elaborate on why u think that ticket is a bad idea?
Best regards, Milan
Milan Wölke – Timetable scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: [Ontology v0.6] Validity [message #3602 is a reply to message #3598] |
Tue, 29 April 2025 23:24 |
Mathias Vanden Auweele
Messages: 28
Registered: February 2025
Location: Brussels
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Hello Milan,
The ticket states:
Quote:The NetEntity should not be a NetworkResource anymore. The reasoning is that we dont want to force the limited availability concept of the RTM on to implementers. Implementers can then decide on a more suitable concept for that, the for example allows for periodicity.
I read this as: every implementer can now chose for themselves how to implement validity. Which means there is no standard anymore.
Instead, railML should find a way to standardize validity instead of allowing for the Wild Wild West :)
Mathias Vanden Auweele
Railway data freelancer
https://matdata.eu
Brussels, Belgium
|
|
|
|
| Re: [Ontology v0.6] Validity [message #3605 is a reply to message #3602] |
Wed, 30 April 2025 10:16 |
Milan Wölke
Messages: 181
Registered: April 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Mathias,
I think we have a bit of a misconception here. The ticket is actually a ticket for the RTM. The RTM is a concept for how to organize infrastructure data in software. It is the base for railML, but it is not railML. What the ticket there tries to express is that implementers of the RTM, one of which is railML3, may choose their own suitable concepts for validity. For railML3 we of course have a standardized way of specifying validities, one that actually is more versatile than the one included in the RTM (see https://wiki3.railml.org/wiki/CO:state).
Hope that clears things up.
Best regards, Milan
Milan Wölke – Timetable scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
