RE: Annotations and ontology design principles WAS : Working list of BP requirements identified during the SDW WG f2f

In SSN we

a) used rdfs:isDefinedBy  as discussed below

b) used dc:source to reference the origin of the term where it is not an ontology term

e.g.



[cid:image001.png@01D062FB.0D809BB0]



c) did nothing for non-anglophiles - but note that this has been requested since.



I would hesitate to use terms stolen from other owl ontologies - as it is important that such properties are only "annotation properties" in owl, and declaring, say "prov:wasDerivedFrom" as an annotation property in our context will certainly create problems when our work is combined with prov. Formally, I suspect it is ok (as I suspect  the same property name can be used as both an annotation property and an object property but it means two different things), but it will most certainly create confusion for users anyway.



I had been thinking of making a place on the wiki for "ontology design principles" since we have a few to do. I had thought to do this when we were up to it, but perhaps we should start now.



Here it is - please use it!



https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Ontology_Design_Principles





Kerry

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Raphaël Troncy [mailto:raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr]

> Sent: Friday, 20 March 2015 9:01 AM

> To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Highett); frans.knibbe@geodan.nl; public-sdw-

> wg@w3.org

> Subject: Re: Working list of BP requirements identified during the SDW

> WG f2f

>

> Dear Simon,

>

> To follow up, as Kerry mentioned, most of the classes and properties

> have already a English label, you can actually see the result using a

> different viewer that our automatically generated HTML page, e.g. at

> http://vowl.visualdataweb.org/webvowl/#iri=http://data.ign.fr/def/ignf

> where on the top right, you can select your favorite language.

>

> What we intended to do is also to translate the comments, now only in

> French, and of course more languages are welcome.

>

> > BTW - I notice that you use rdfs:isDefinedBy to link from members to

> > the ontology as a whole.

>

> Indeed, we do. The tools we use tend to do something with this.

>

> > In the case we are discussing - which concerns traceability of

> > individual resources to their original definitions in a different

> > formalization - perhaps dct:isVersionOf, or prov:alternateOf or

> > prov:wasDerivedFrom provide more specific semantics.

>

> As you have said, the biggest problem is that the ISO standard does not

> give us URI to re-use and link to. Perhaps we could simply reference

> the appropriate section in the ISO document in each rdfs:comment?

>

>    Raphaël

>

> --

> Raphaël Troncy

> EURECOM, Campus SophiaTech

> Multimedia Communications Department

> 450 route des Chappes, 06410 Biot, France.

> e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr<mailto:raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr> & raphael.troncy@gmail.com<mailto:raphael.troncy@gmail.com>

> Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242

> Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200

> Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/