Re: [ISSUE-2] Module suggestions for META-SHARE RDF vocabulary

Am 22.05.2014 um 14:00 schrieb Marta Villegas <marta.villegas@gmail.com>:

> Dear Penny Dave and all,
> 
> For things like ORGANIZATION, PROJECT, DOCUMENT, PEOPLE (ie non-linguistic things) we could use existing ontologies like foaf, doap, bibo srwc etc.... (just chose the one that fits more your purpose)
> Also for language names/codes, country names, mime-types (we did not find anything but ...) etc.

Agree. And for mime-types there is the IANA registry which also comes in an XML version
http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xml
if URIs are needed for each mime type one could generate an RDF version out of that.

For language subtags there is the sub tag registry
http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry/language-subtag-registry
and lingvoj provides a linked data version with a lot of additional information
http://www.lingvoj.org/languages/all.html

Best,

Felix

> 
> Best
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2014-05-22 11:55 GMT+02:00 Penny Labropoulou <penny@ilsp.gr>:
> Dear Dave and all,
> 
> We agree that a separation into modules will help the discussion, and we
> basically agree with your proposal.
> 
> One point as regards the RESOURCE_TYPE module: all LRs are described via the
> same set of "administrative/descriptive" components + an additional set of
> more specific components, depending on their resourceType AND mediaType
> values - the latter set corresponds to all the components included in the
> resourceComponentType part. So, there's a specific set of components for
> corpora, lexical/conceptual resources, language descriptions and
> tools/services (the four resource types recognized by META-SHARE); inside
> these, we have separate components, depending on the mediaType, so we have
> text corpora components, video corpora components, audio corpora components,
> but also lexical/conceptual text components etc. Inside each of these
> combinations, some elements are shared (e.g. linguality and language, time
> classification etc.) or can be similar (e.g. there are similar
> classification components for text, audio, video and image). So, it might be
> more convenient to separate RESOURCE_TYPE and MEDIA_TYPE modules. What do
> you think?
> 
> We also suggest that we add three further modules: ORGANIZATION, PROJECT and
> DOCUMENT - corresponding to the organizationInfo, projectInfo &
> documentationInfo parts of the original model.
> 
> Best,
> Penny
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Lewis [mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie]
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 12:38 PM
> To: public-ld4lt@w3.org
> Subject: [ISSUE-2] Module suggestions for META-SHARE RDF vocabulary
> 
> Hi all,
> At the last call we discussed the template for the meta-share ontology as
> kindly initiated by Jorge:
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15SE4_qAqYFostmD52uKxpkCPZh1f5TrPeoXK
> NTlDYpQ/edit#gid=0
> 
> with further information at:
> https://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt/wiki/Meta-Share_OWL_metamodel
> 
> We discussed modules for this to help break down the taks and to partition
> parts that might take more time to agree or need involvement by different
> subgroups compared to others.
> 
> We already agreed to have a CORE component and split out a LICENSES module,
> but had asked for other suggestions.
> 
> I'd like to propose two further modules:
> 
> RESOURCE_TYPE corresponding to the resrouceComponentType part of the
> meta-share schema:
> http://www.meta-share.org/portal/knowledgebase/Resourcecomponenttype
> 
> and
> 
> USAGE_TYPE corresponding to the usageInfo part of the meta-share schema:
> http://www.meta-share.org/portal/knowledgebase/Usageinfo
> 
> These contain large enumerations that could both be subject to ongoing
> debate and likely candidate for extension/specialization. By separating
> these out we can avoid such debate delaying work on the CORe module.
> 
> Should we add these as modules to the spreadsheet?
> 
>  From an ontology modelling viewpoint, how should we manage the modelling in
> these proposed modules, would a class taxonomy be a better approach and an
> enumeration?
> 
> Kind Regards,
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Marta Villegas
> marta.villegas@gmail.com