W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > April 2014

RE: TGN place types (broader/narrower spanning ConceptSchemes)

From: <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 07:32:13 +0000
To: <vladimir.alexiev@ontotext.com>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
CC: <jcobb@getty.edu>
Message-ID: <2A7346E8D9F62D4CA8D78387173A054A5FF88D7D@exmbx04-cdc.nexus.csiro.au>
> do you think it's a good idea to represent gvp:placeType as subprop of broaderGeneric, spanning from TGN to AAT?

That is counter-intuitive for me. 
'type' usually indicates the class of which something is a member. 
For a particular application, type or class or set is different to instance or individual or member. 
Do you want to use the concept 'Archaeological Site' in the same place that you would use "Acropolis" or "Stonehenge" or "Uluru"? 

gvp:placeType should be a sub-property of rdf:type. 
If the place-types have been modelled as individuals, then you need to 'pun' them to classes when using them this way. 

Or am I missing the point here? 

-----Original Message-----
From: Vladimir Alexiev [mailto:vladimir.alexiev@ontotext.com] 
Sent: Saturday, 5 April 2014 6:14 AM
To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Cc: jcobb@getty.edu
Subject: RE: TGN place types (broader/narrower spanning ConceptSchemes)

> > Hierarchical relations in TGN (just like in AAT) carry historic information, which is attached with rdf:Statement.
> > See 
> > http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/lod/aat_semantic_re

> > presentation.pdf, sec 2.14 and 2.14.2
> Very interesting document, I will make reference to gvp ontology in the future !
> It is much more complete than the previous one.

Thanks, Oreste!

> PlaceTypes can be the actual one and the past ones.
> (<PlaceType> and <PreviousPlaceType>, with a subClass hierarchy).
> Or perhaps <CurrentPlaceType> and <PastPlaceType> as subClass of <PlaceType>?
> This simple distinction could help in avoiding recalling false 
> PlaceTypes if the reader is interested just in the present, and have a full list if (s)he don't care about conflicting info (a PlaceType can get different values during the centuries).

A place can have several types even now. 
In my previous email I gave the example of Indianapolis that has 6 types (from "inhabited place", to "sporting center").
One of these is the preferred type (most often "inhabited place").
They can even be ordered.
In addition to start/end dates, they may have a flag: Historic, Current, or Both. (And I'm not sure whether "end" is correlated with "Historic").
If start/end/Historic is set, there usually is a comment: 
e.g. for "sporting center" it says "especially noted for Indianapolis 500 automobile race, since 1911", and start="1911"^^xsd:gYear

So you see there are many nuances.
For gvp:broader in AAT I've chosen to capture these nuances with subprops:
- broaderPreferred/NonPreferred
- broaderPartitive/Generic/Instantial
And I capture the rest in rdf:Statement.

I don’t think there's special need to capture Historic in a subprop.
The users usually want to single out the Preferred type (e.g. to display as disambiguation).

But nobody has aswered my question: do you think it's a good idea to represent gvp:placeType as subprop of broaderGeneric, spanning from TGN to AAT?

This gives more flexibility and power (see the doc in my original message), but may create confusion.
Currently this query returns the narrower concepts of <religious center> from AAT:
  select *{?x skos:broaderTransitive aat:<religious center> } When we add TGN, it will also return actual Religious Centers from TGN.
To limit to AAT concepts, one has to add inScheme:
  select *{?x skos:broaderTransitive aat:<religious center>; skos:inScheme aat: }


Similarly, if one queries
  select *{?x skos:narrowerTransitive tgn:<Akrópolis>} One will get not just the super-places of Akrópolis (World, Europe, Greece, Periféreia Protevoúsis, Athens) but also the place-types of Akrópolis (neighborhood, archeological site, religious center) To get only TGN places, one has to add inScheme:
  select *{?x skos:narrowerTransitive tgn:<Akrópolis>; skos:inScheme tgn: }

Please give me your opinion!

Received on Monday, 7 April 2014 07:32:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:46:36 UTC