W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > July 2009

Re: looking for an event ontology/vocabulary

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:40:23 -0400
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0907291140pd6f0538x1c060c7752a86988@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@koeln.de>
Cc: public-lod@w3.org
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Simon
Reinhardt<simon.reinhardt@koeln.de> wrote:
> Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Yves Raimond<yves.raimond@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  and so we didn't got the incentive to
>>> write a better one. Among those examples, you have:
>>>
>>> * A score in a musical performance
>>> * A musical instrument in a musical performance
>>> * A piece of text in a reading
>>> * A microphone in a recording
>>
>> A chair in the room? The door to leave? The program handed out to the
>> audience? The audience? The light bulb illuminating the room? The food
>> that audience ate while watching? The videotape that was being used to
>> record the performance? The city in which the performance took place?
>
> I think that's splitting hairs. If the light bulb is important to you then
> add it to your data.

I see. So we should understand the factor property to related the
event to anything the publisher thinks is important to link to. Well,
that's one way to go. But use rdfs:seeAlso, then, instead of something
that has the look of being something different.

I will simply say that this isn't much to go on, and, while nice for
browsing, isn't really the sort of think you want to build a
predictably behaving system on.

> With RDF it's always pretty much up to you what you do,
> right?

How is this statement not true of absolutely anything? I think we want
something a *little* tighter :)

> The ontology user and data publisher is as responsible for data
> integration as is the ontology designer. And if the data consumers thing you
> went too far and have too much noise in your data then you have to fix that.
> And while the Event ontology doesn't state event:Factor and geo:SpatialThing
> to be distinct (maybe they didn't want to make such statements about other
> people's terms - with OWL 2 they could do this for event:factor and
> event:place now though) I think it's pretty obvious that you're supposed to
> use event:place for the city in which the performance took place (or more
> exactly for the venue which is in the city).

Everything is obvious for a person (well, it's easier to say things
are obvious when there is no way to be wrong).
Nothing is obvious for a machine.

-Alan
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 18:41:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:20:51 UTC