Re: Big data applications for general users based on RDF - where are they?

Hello Dominic,

On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 09:35:53AM +0100, Dominic Oldman wrote:
> I take the point about the ability to set things up quickly, but this just points to the fact that we have some way to go on a number of strands. But we all know we on the right path.  I would say that focusing in on some of the huge range of potential applications that you couldn't do with a relational database will help move things along more.
> 
> On ontology here is my experience. You need a solid ontology that describes your domain at precisely the right level to represent domain knowledge to establish key relationships but which supports specialisation below this level. This level is just at the point above which the domain varies. However after going down the specialisation route we have found a more accessible and portable approach. 
> 
> We have used an ontology that does precisely the above but used it to create a set of ready made constructs for key domain concepts that are uncontentious. A particular concept may have a number of alternative constructs from which an organisation can select as appropriate. We then avoid the need to specialise the constructs using sub classes and sub properties and instead provide a mechanism for plugging in local vocabularies. This transfers the issue of co-referencing ontology extensions to co-referencing vocabularies. This is far more accessible for two reasons. Firstly, the contextualisation of the non-specialised elements provide enough knowledge representation to perform the co-referencing.  Secondly, there are many vocabulary co-referencing initiatives that are becoming more mature and accessible. The plugin approach is supported by typing whole event constructs and reification of key properties with local terminology, people and place
>  authorities, but also terminology unique to the organisation (Institutional context).
> 
> For example, the production of something may have a generalised property of "carried out by". This could be specialised in a large number of ways. Instead we can look at the local specialisations and use them as a vocabulary to either type the full event or to reify the property itself. E.g. "designed by".
> 
> This process avoids a whole range of issues and also has the potential to be built into accessible implementation tools useful for organisations without technical resources. It means that we can start producing the applications that we can't do with relational databases and which operate across many different datasets robustly.
> 
> How does this sound?

This sounds complicated :-)

That the cultural heritage crowd seems to have a need for it's own upper level
ontology underlines my point about schematic and structural heterogeneity.

Why does CIDOC define general concepts as place, event, spacial coordinates ?
Are there no suitable existing ontologies for this ?

Can CIDOC also be used without specialization of properties and classes ?

I think museums have used controlled vocabularies for quite a while. Can you
give an example that illustrates why the additional effort required for your 
project is justified ?

Regards,

Michael Brunnbauer

-- 
++  Michael Brunnbauer
++  netEstate GmbH
++  Geisenhausener Straße 11a
++  81379 München
++  Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
++  Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89 
++  E-Mail brunni@netestate.de
++  http://www.netestate.de/
++
++  Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München)
++  USt-IdNr. DE221033342
++  Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
++  Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel