This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
— |
ws2_thursday_20_october [2011/11/03 10:27] (current) mikehypercube created |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | ====== WS2 Working Note 20 October ====== | ||
+ | Back to [[Technical Modeling Framework]] | ||
+ | |||
+ | Back to [[start]] | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Cross references ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | DC Source can refer to a Resource. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Examples: ===== | ||
+ | Bibliographic resource for Standard | ||
+ | Reference to the individual element | ||
+ | Reference to entries within enumerations | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Conclusions: ==== | ||
+ | We need a model of kinds of sources. | ||
+ | Reference to places within the document or a definition within the document. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Issues: ===== | ||
+ | How much depth we want | ||
+ | This would increase the scope of what we need to do substantially. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | For XML Schema: there be a namespace. | ||
+ | For ISO document there would be a page number, | ||
+ | |||
+ | What about FIBIM draft terms. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Conclusions: ==== | ||
+ | Provide some definition of what we mean by Source. | ||
+ | Use TermOrigin and DefinitionOrigin as a means to point to those. | ||
+ | Refine dct:source to refine for FIBO course types. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Action:** come up with a list of reference types. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Send to EK who will look at what other people have done for those kinds of sources. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Bibliographic citations work is already done. Includes DBPedia (RDF Triples). | ||
+ | Things like wikipedia, InvestorWords.com and so on. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Other initiatives have their own ontologies for citations. | ||
+ | We should reuse what's already done on this. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Is there yet a single acknowledge way of doing this? There are multiples, but not clear if there's one more commonly used one we can use. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Also need to distinguish definitions that are "adapted". | ||
+ | |||
+ | Can create our own structure. This would include being able to flag a Definition Origin as 'adapted'. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Action:** MB to provide a list of the reference types we currently use. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Consensus awaited on whether there is a consensus within the SemWeb community as to how they do this. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Tools? Would be seen as an OWL Annotation Property. Are there tools that look at certain tags at least for citation. Would identify what's currently being done on that. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Further Notes ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Further Notes material: Using various SKOS note types (see note in spreadsheet.) | ||
+ | |||
+ | Question: isn't SKOS required to have SKOS Concepts? | ||
+ | |||
+ | Annotations can apply to anything since the reasoners ignore them. Only really matters if what we are talking about as a SKOS concept is using those semantic mapping relations. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Won't this break the metamodel? | ||
+ | |||
+ | In DC, most things relate to 'resource' e.g. Source can apply to any Resource. | ||
+ | SKOS Notes (not relationships) can apply to any Resource. Only the Object Properties (mapping relations) are required to be of Concepts. | ||
+ | |||
+ | rdfs:isDefinedBy is this relevant here? Refers to a URI for a particular document at the document level (not the item level). | ||
+ | |||
+ | Use this or DC for the above bibliographic references? Only use this for the link to the URI for that document. | ||
+ | |||
+ | There is a bug in ODM about constraints of these. ODM says it has to be a URI but doesn't say what sort. Should be a URI that specifically refers to a specific document. This has to dereference as a document file (pdf, html, word etc.). | ||
+ | |||
+ | So would we use rdfs:isDefinedBy? No. | ||
+ | EK uses as a reference to a source that you used to create the model. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Conclusions:** we won't use rdfs:isDefinedBy we will use and extend the DC terms as previously noted. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Synonym ===== | ||
+ | There is nothing in DC and SKOS | ||
+ | ISO 1087 has something, BUT the synonyms are terms not concepts. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Write up how we would use it, how and why. | ||
+ | |||
+ | We use it as text. | ||
+ | Alternate label: use skos:altLabel | ||
+ | |||
+ | What about ISO 11179 'near synonym' notion? Not in SKOS. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||