Re: ODRL Teleconference NOTES

On Mon 2013-Apr-15, at 13:26, Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com>
 wrote:

>
> On 12 Apr 2013, at 18:26, Mo McRoberts <mo.mcroberts@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> There is an open question as to whether the actions (in particular) would be better modelled as a SKOS classification scheme than a set of abstract things… I think on balance I'm leaning towards “yes” (particularly as a classification scheme allows skos:broader and skos:narrower-type relationships). I don't feel hugely strongly on it, but more than happy to make the change if there's anything approaching a consensus that it'd be an improvement!
>
> I agree, SKOS would improve semantic relationships, but would also come at a cost of needing to also understand SKOS (versus native RDF/OWL that Protege and other tools happily reason with..)

Certainly to realise the full "power" of a SKOS-modelled vocabulary that would be the case, but I'd contend that in this case…

* Expressing the actions as instances of skos:Concept would be no "worse" than instances of owl:Thing (something which doesn't understand any SKOS would still treat them as fairly non-descript, if labelled, instances)

* The basics of SKOS, particularly for classification hierarchies, are *fairly* well-understood by tools

> Perhaps we should learn to crawl before walking ;-)

I agree entirely -- just trying to find the right balance :)

M.

--
Mo McRoberts - Analyst - BBC Archive Development,
Zone 1.08, BBC Scotland, 40 Pacific Quay, Glasgow G51 1DA,
MC3 D4, Media Centre, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TQ,
0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key CEBCF03E



-----------------------------
http://www.bbc.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in
error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the
information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to
this.
-----------------------------

Received on Monday, 15 April 2013 13:06:05 UTC