- 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