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

Dear all,

Please consider the following picture as a starting point to try to 
identify different metadata in clusters and  splitting it from the 
content oriented part of the LR . Issues related with country codes are 
not included in this slide, but it should be easy to extend.  In the 
middle, the white boxes refer to candidate vocabularies to be reused or 
to innitiatives that could help us with the deffinition of the 
properties and their values.

I hope that it helps

Asun




El 22/05/2014 14:00, Marta Villegas escribió:
> 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.
>
> Best
>
>
>
>
> 2014-05-22 11:55 GMT+02:00 Penny Labropoulou <penny@ilsp.gr 
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>]
>     Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 12:38 PM
>     To: public-ld4lt@w3.org <mailto: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
>     <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15SE4_qAqYFostmD52uKxpkCPZh1f5TrPeoXK%0ANTlDYpQ/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 <mailto:marta.villegas@gmail.com>

-- 
Prof. Asunción Gómez-Pérez
Catedrática de Universidad
Director of the Ontology Engineering Group
Facultad de Informática owl:sameAs Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Informáticos
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
Campus de Montegancedo, sn
Boadilla del Monte, 28660, Spain
Home page: www.oeg-upm.net
Email: asun@fi.upm.es
Phone: (34-91) 336-7417
Fax: (34-91) 352-4819