- From: Richard Light <richard@light.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 06:48:03 +0100
- To: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, David Canos <davidcanos@gmail.com>, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>
In message <82593ac00907291409t57507d29u54a5d37a190692f@mail.gmail.com>, Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com> writes >>> The disjoint statement between agent and factor defines factors as >>> something that doesn't have an active role in the event. >> >> But are necessary for the event to take place? Or play a significant role in >> the event, so that if they were not present, the event would have been >> different? Or something? > >Sorry, missed that comment for some reason. In this ontology, events >are "just" arbitrary classifications of space--time regions. Hence you >can perfectly classify any such region ("I thought about RDF over the >last ten years", "I was walking to the office from 8 to 9 this >morning"). And yes, it is purposely loose. Another ontology/vocabulary which is centred around events is the CIDOC CRM (Conceptual Reference Model). [1] It is "a formal ontology intended to facilitate the integration, mediation and interchange of heterogeneous cultural heritage information", and comes out of the museums community. There is an OWL representation [2] which has been developed by a group at Erlangen-Nuremburg University. It certainly doesn't lack definitions ;-) I would be interested to hear what Linked Data folks make of it as a potential framework for expressing more general event-related assertions, i.e. going beyond its stated scope. I would also value a more expert opinion than my own as to whether the current expression of the CRM (either the OWL or RDF [3] version) is "fit for purpose" as a Linked Data ontology. Richard [1] http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/ [2] http://www8.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/IMMD8/Services/cidoc-crm/index.htm l [3] http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/rdfs/cidoc_crm_v5.0.1.rdfs -- Richard Light
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 05:49:52 UTC