Re: [mawg] action-249: new OWL version (rev. 4) of the ontology available

Hi Tobias, all,

I had a look at the new version of the ontology and I also have some  
comments and questions.

- like Werner, I would suggest to rename isAgent into something like  
hasRole, if you want to have a generic Agent class that can have  
different roles like Actor, Creator and Publisher. I would then  
suggest to rename Contributor to Role, as it represents the head of  
the hierarchy of the possible roles attached to an Agent. An ontology  
containing the classes of Agent, Contributor and Actor can seem  
confusing for a non-expert user at a first glance :) The class of  
Actor should be described with a comment stating that it is one  
possible role for and Agent (although this is clear from the property  
browsing, it might not be extremely clear from an alphabetical list of  
classes, for example). Should I try to attach some comments to the  
classes and properties from the new version? This would show you what  
other people might interpret from the ontology as it is now and could  
be useful anyway?
But yet another question about this design pattern: is it necessary to  
have the roles separated from the Agent? It would also be possible  
(and would look simpler to me) to have the different roles as  
subclasses of Agent... did you choose to have a parallel hierarchy  
because of the distinction that you want to make between Organization  
and Person?
- I understand the necessity of a placeholder class as a range for  
properties such as compression, but would it not make sense to  
harmonize the range of other properties that should point to a URI to  
skos:Concepts? Would that be too restrictive? In a modeling  
perspective, what is the added value to have a skos:Concept instead of  
a classic blank node for the properties like compression (i.e.  
properties that point to an entity that has to have several properties  
attached to)?
- about the range of some properties like keyword: the range type is  
set to string, would it not be nice to have possible ranges as string  
OR URI? Is that too messy for the APIs?
- I did not check it out for all of the properties, but it seems that  
some symmetric properties are not specified as such, although the  
ontology is defined in OWL, it is probably on the todo list though,  
right? :)

Otherwise, indeed, the ontology looks good! Thanks a lot Tobias and  
Jean-Pierre!

Best,
Véronique

On Jul 15, 2010, at 7:35 AM, Tobias Bürger wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Jean-Pierre and myself recently had some discussions in which we  
> changed some parts of the implementation of the ontology.
> You can find the new version here: http://www.salzburgresearch.at/~tbuerger/ma-ont-rev4.owl
>
> Amongst others we introduced an Agent class having subclasses Person/ 
> Organization and introduced an attribute agentIs following the role  
> design pattern to assign roles to persons and organizations wrt. to  
> MediaResources.
> The possible roles (Contributor, Author, etc.) are now organized in  
> a subclass hierarchy.
> Some properties were changed as well (amongst others the qualifiers  
> of the properties, i.e. being functional).
> I removed the NamedFragment class and introduced a name property for  
> the MediaFragment class to replace it (this is a point to be  
> discussed).
>
> I think we are getting more closely to a stable version.
>
> Feedback is welcome at any time!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Tobia
>
> -- 
> ================================================================
> Dr. Tobias Bürger         Knowledge and Media Technologies Group
> Salzburg Research                           FON +43.662.2288-415
> Forschungsgesellschaft                      FAX +43.662.2288-222
> Jakob-Haringer-Straße 5/III   tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at
> A-5020 Salzburg | AUSTRIA         http://www.salzburgresearch.at
>
>

Received on Monday, 26 July 2010 17:35:47 UTC