Differences

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

ws2_thursday_20_october [2011/11/03 14:27] (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 · Last modified: 2011/11/03 14:27 by mikehypercube
 
OMG Home Logos and Trademarks Become a Member Become a Sponsor Upcoming TC Meeting TOP