W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > June 2009

Re: Extra AWWSW on Tues 2 June 9:00 AM EST for IRW ontology

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 15:02:23 +0300
Message-ID: <b3be92a00906020502x74b56a57ge0000116d13b55ba@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>, valentina presutti <vpresutti@gmail.com>
Looking over this diagram, I think the things missing from IRW are:

-Entity: Perhaps superclass of irw:WebRepresentation
-Generic Resource: Perhaps owl:equivalentClass irw:InformationResource
-Fixed Resource: rdfs:subClassOf InformationResource?
- just import most of ont.rdf from TimBL, but add in our media-type
ontology to help out with cardinality restrictions (i.e. a fixed
resource can have exactly one media type)
-Maybe Version: Not sure. If this a property or a class?
- import all the time-specific/language-specific etc. directly into IRW
- maybe awww:message rdfs:equivalentClass ire:InformationRealization
- descriptionResource owl:equivalentClass ldow:AssociatedDescription

I think we should *not* model any of the "ftrr" work, characteristic,
or have lots of different versions of "representation", and so on. I'm
not sure there's a difference that makes a difference with some of
these terms, and the Boothian "ftrr" idea, while interesting, is
incorrect and should not be modellled IMHO.

It's more difficult thinking about "state". We could have a resource
have a state, and then say the WebRepresentation represents the state,
but then that's trying to put some temporality into an ontology (as
the state should have some time interval), and ontologies really
aren't that good at modelling things that change over time, and
tracking changes is difficult if not a generally bad idea for OWL

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote:
> Harry, for reference, the diagram we've been using for target practice at
> our telecons is here (temporarily at least):
> http://sw.neurocommons.org/tmp/jar-diagram-5.pdf
> It was on the ESW wiki but seems to have been blown away. Will pursue fixing
> this separately.
> The focus has been on how to write an ontology that has a chance of
> interoperating
> with others, so issues such as curation practice and falsifiability
> are more important
> than they would be in a pure linked data approach.
> Jonathan
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 12:03:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:07 UTC