my token about the "3 or more layer" structure for the ontology

Hi everyone,

I was at first very much in favor of an ontology that would distinguish 
different levels of media documents, like "work-manifestation-instance-item", 
but after reading this email from the list:
I agreed with the fact that we would probably only need a simple structure in 
our case, that multi-level structures were meant for linking different entities 
that have different status together: if we aim for linking the descriptions of a 
single item between different vocabularies, we need to specify if the single 
item is a work_in_XX_vocabulary, more likely a manifestation_in_XX_vocabulary 
(see note 1 below), to give its "type", and if people/use cases want to link 
this single item to other related works, manifestations, instances or items, 
they can use the framework defined in the schemas reviewed in
and use these properties for completing their description.
So we would need a property like "has_type" to link a single description's 
identifier to the correct level of multilevel description schemes.

I changed my mind think that only one "family" of use cases would need more 
levels, that they are somehow context dependent (and could thus be considered as 
requirements for a family of use cases), but of course if it turns out that more 
that one family of use cases needs this distinction, then we should consider 
going for a multilevel structure. Anyway, we would need to map informally the 
way these levels are expressed, in order to provide possible relevant "types" 
for the description of each single element.

note 1: by specifying the different names of the relevant Concepts/terms in 
schemes like VRA, XMP etc., we would informally define a semantic equivalence 
between the ways these schema express these levels of description. It would look 
<hasType xmpMM:InstanceID, vra:image, frbr:item>

I think that the table
is a very valuable tool for people to express their ideas about it, thank you 
very much Ruben for designing it!

Best regards,

Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2008 10:28:08 UTC