Fwd: OpenLink SIOC Enhancement Suggestions (3)

Forward to semantic-web list in order to get more feedback.
Original discussion in the SIOC-Dev list:
http://groups.google.com/group/sioc-dev

In part, this discussion involves a question on what are best
practices for creating ontologies.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Uldis Bojars <captsolo@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 18, 2006 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: OpenLink SIOC Enhancement Suggestions (3)
To: sioc-dev@googlegroups.com


Hi Richard,

On 12/18/06, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:
>
> Kingsley,
>
> Why not use rdf:type and make weblog, wiki etc. subclasses of
> sioc:Forum?

Precisely - all the tools needed to express types of forums are already there:
 - rdf:type
 - SIOC types module [ http://rdfs.org/sioc/types ]

The only thing that needs to be done is add forum subtypes to the types module.
Currently it only has Comment - a subclass of Post.

You could argue if subtypes of sioc:Forum should be in the main
ontology or in a separate module. The motivation for a separate module
is to keep the ontology generic enough and to have specific type
hierarchies separate. Open to suggestions how to best do it.

Speaking of being generic - some even argued that we should not have
Comment at all because comments are just Posts that are replied to
other posts.

P.S. A suggestion for implementations: In order to help reasoners (or
rather the fact that they are not yet widely used) let's do the job
for them and specify that a forum is both sioc:Forum and its
appropriate subtype (e.g. sioc_types:Weblog), even if there is a
subclass relationship between them.

Best,
Uldis

[ http://captsolo.net/info/ ]

Received on Monday, 18 December 2006 19:12:22 UTC