- From: Walter Koch <kochw@ait.co.at>
- Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 11:27:48 +0200
- To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
- CC: 'Kate Fernie' <kate.fernie@mdrprojects.com>
- Message-ID: <533A8694.6080508@ait.co.at>
Supporting Richards comment it might also be useful to harmonize vocabularies, e.g. placetypes (categories?): Pleiades: http://pleiades.stoa.org/vocabularies/place-types TGN: http://demo.ait.co.at/thesaurus/index.php?file=xml/Operation_scanIndex_PLACETYPE.xml IDEF5 Ontology Languages (http://www.idef.com/IDEF5.htm) might also be useful for ontology modeling, especially: temporal, spacial, and meronymic relations (attached, D.23 & D.24). Walter Am 01.04.2014 09:58, schrieb Richard Light: > > On 01/04/2014 07:07, Osma Suominen wrote: >> On 30/03/14 11:15, Christophe Dupriez wrote: >> >>> In this precise case, I would model whatever is needed using the most >>> suitable vocabularies available if any. >>> And I would add (automatically if possible) SKOS relations to guide the >>> documentary retrieval engine. >>> I.e. I would model without constraints something ontologically "rock >>> solid" and then derive a "publishing" structure using SKOS. >> >> +1 for this approach from me too. > Yes, I'd agree with that approach too. What would be /really/ helpful > for end-users would be if the various historically-aware place > authorities (SAPO, TGN, Pelagios, PastPlace, ...) all used the /same > /ontological structure to express statements about places in time. > Possibly something CIDOC CRM-based? > > Richard > >> >> This is what we are doing with the Finnish Spatio-Temporal Ontology >> SAPO [1]. The ontology itself is modelled using OWL, and has two main >> classes, time-bound places (similar in spirit to "Crimea after >> Russian annexation in 2014") and time-independent places (e.g. >> "Crimea", "Ukraine"). The relations between time-independent and >> time-dependent places are modelled separately - the current idea is >> to use the CHANGE vocabulary [2] to model the events (establishment, >> merge, split etc) that form the time series, but other >> representations for the representation including a simple >> part-of/includes property have been used in the past. >> >> For publishing purposes, a SKOS representation is derived, simply by >> defining rdfs:subClassOf and rdfs:subPropertyOf relationships that >> map the classes and properties of the ontology to a simplified SKOS >> view. The conversion itself is implemented using the Skosify tool >> [3]. Of course, SPARQL construct queries could have been used here as >> well, though Skosify does some additional validation and enrichment >> on the conversion result. >> >> -Osma >> >> [1] http://www.seco.tkk.fi/ontologies/sapo/ >> >> [2] http://www.linkedearth.org/change/ns/ >> >> [3] http://code.google.com/p/skosify/ >> > > -- > *Richard Light* -- Univ.-Prof.em.Dr.Walter KOCH Angewandte Informationstechnik Forschungsgesellschaft mbH Klosterwiesgasse 32/1; A-8010 Graz; Austria TEL:+43(316)835359-0 * FAX:+43(316)835359-75 * Mobile:+43.664.3556521 e-mail: kochw@ait.co.at * Skype: kochwgraz
Attachments
- application/pdf attachment: Idef5_meronymic_relations.pdf
Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2014 11:02:14 UTC