82
5 Applications of the Metadata Standards
probabilities were determined is representative of a class of scenarios to which A S
belongs. Simple alignment correspondences [38] can be specified by categorically
subsuming concepts and relations from S under those from T , yielding relabelling
rules [39] that do not affect the graph structure (only the labels) and that are context
free, i.e. independent of adjacent vertices and edges, such as
vivo:evaluates S,
(5.11)
stating that whatever evaluates an object, by implication, always also is a sign for
that object. Besides, qualified subsumptions can be formulated, such as
∃(vivo:evaluates
−
).evmpo:assertion emmo-semiotics:Object,
(5.12)
i.e. that which is evaluated by an assertion is an “object” in the sense of Peircean
semiotics; this is a context-sensitive rule, since the relabelling of the vertex (individual) is contingent on one of the edges, namely, an incoming edge with the label
vivo:evaluates. Beyond this, more complex graph transformation rules [40] can be
applied in the case that the transformation goes beyond relabelling, i.e. if vertices or
edges in the knowledge graph need to be eliminated or created by applying m : n
property chain correspondences [38].
5.4 VIMMP-EMMO Alignment
To permit the transformation of a knowledge graph from the way in which it appears
to the VIMMP marketplace platform to the more abstract representation required for
interoperability within a heterogeneous ecosystem of platforms mediated through the
EMMO, both concepts and relations need to be aligned between the (VIMMP marketplace) domain level and the (EMMO) top level. This is realized by an ontology
module for EMMO-VIMMP Integration (EVI). For the present purpose, accordingly, S is the VIMMP system of ontologies, including the EVMPO (but excluding
VIPRS), and T is the EMMO, in the case of concepts, and the EMMO in combination with VIPRS, in the case of relations. In the absence of co-annotated corpora
that can be analysed automatically, the correspondences were all specified explicitly,
by evaluating the concept and relation definitions from the EMMO alpha version in
comparison with the respective definitions from the VIMMP ontologies.
Concerning the conceptual alignment, Fig. 5.5 shows how the categories from the
EVMPO, cf. Sect. 3.2, are mapped to EMMO concepts. The red arrows and double
lines in Fig. 5.5 represent this alignment, which is itself expressed as an ontology
and implemented in the EVI module. This part of the alignment guarantees that all
VIMMP domain-ontology concepts are subsumed under EMMO concepts (where
they are all situated below emmo-physical:Physical taxonomically), since all of these
concepts are either subclasses of one of the fundamental paradigmatic categories from
the EVMPO or of the fundamental non-paradigmatic category evmpo:annotation.
5 Applications of the Metadata Standards
probabilities were determined is representative of a class of scenarios to which A S
belongs. Simple alignment correspondences [38] can be specified by categorically
subsuming concepts and relations from S under those from T , yielding relabelling
rules [39] that do not affect the graph structure (only the labels) and that are context
free, i.e. independent of adjacent vertices and edges, such as
vivo:evaluates S,
(5.11)
stating that whatever evaluates an object, by implication, always also is a sign for
that object. Besides, qualified subsumptions can be formulated, such as
∃(vivo:evaluates
−
).evmpo:assertion emmo-semiotics:Object,
(5.12)
i.e. that which is evaluated by an assertion is an “object” in the sense of Peircean
semiotics; this is a context-sensitive rule, since the relabelling of the vertex (individual) is contingent on one of the edges, namely, an incoming edge with the label
vivo:evaluates. Beyond this, more complex graph transformation rules [40] can be
applied in the case that the transformation goes beyond relabelling, i.e. if vertices or
edges in the knowledge graph need to be eliminated or created by applying m : n
property chain correspondences [38].
5.4 VIMMP-EMMO Alignment
To permit the transformation of a knowledge graph from the way in which it appears
to the VIMMP marketplace platform to the more abstract representation required for
interoperability within a heterogeneous ecosystem of platforms mediated through the
EMMO, both concepts and relations need to be aligned between the (VIMMP marketplace) domain level and the (EMMO) top level. This is realized by an ontology
module for EMMO-VIMMP Integration (EVI). For the present purpose, accordingly, S is the VIMMP system of ontologies, including the EVMPO (but excluding
VIPRS), and T is the EMMO, in the case of concepts, and the EMMO in combination with VIPRS, in the case of relations. In the absence of co-annotated corpora
that can be analysed automatically, the correspondences were all specified explicitly,
by evaluating the concept and relation definitions from the EMMO alpha version in
comparison with the respective definitions from the VIMMP ontologies.
Concerning the conceptual alignment, Fig. 5.5 shows how the categories from the
EVMPO, cf. Sect. 3.2, are mapped to EMMO concepts. The red arrows and double
lines in Fig. 5.5 represent this alignment, which is itself expressed as an ontology
and implemented in the EVI module. This part of the alignment guarantees that all
VIMMP domain-ontology concepts are subsumed under EMMO concepts (where
they are all situated below emmo-physical:Physical taxonomically), since all of these
concepts are either subclasses of one of the fundamental paradigmatic categories from
the EVMPO or of the fundamental non-paradigmatic category evmpo:annotation.