User Tools

Site Tools


ws2_thursday_20_october

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

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. 
 +
 +
  
ws2_thursday_20_october.txt ยท Last modified: 2011/11/03 10:27 by mikehypercube