Re: Press.net News Ontology

Highlights some interesting dilemmas. 
Reasons for defining own namespace could be
Personal and or company prestige
Meaningful redescription - New nuance of meaning implicit to this ontology. For instance due to authoritative single source. Or nature of community of users. 
Control. pns:aliad might need a slightly different meaning usage than the suggested substitute. 

That would be set against ontology reuse and wider (existing) usage and dissemination with these users. 
That seems to me raise another issue so pertinent to the emerging web. Who is the user. Do they have an identity, a group identity, loyalties?  Can one group reinforce them (The Press Association say) or another coax them away? 
These fraught  issues cannot be disguised or avoided. They are not technical.  

Best

Adam 

Sent from my iPhone

On 8 Sep 2011, at 19:00, Bob Ferris <zazi@smiy.org> wrote:

> Hello again,
> 
> .. and I can continue the previous list:
> 
> 14. pnt:about can be replaced by foaf:topic/foaf:primaryTopic.
> 
> 15. pnc:classifiedBy can be replaced by dcterms:subject (as recommended by SKOS).
> 
> 16. pnc:Classification can be replaced by skos:Concept.
> 
> 17. pnc:subClassficationOf can be replaced by skos:broader.
> 
> 18. pns:aliad can be replaced by skos:altLabel.
> 
> 19. pns:Stuff can be replaced by owl:Thing.
> 
> So far the following terms are rather well designed:
> 
> 1. pns:mentions
> 
> 2. pns:notablyAssociatedWith
> 
> 
> Please keep in mind:
> 
> 1. Ontology modelling is not database schema modelling
> 
> 2. Ontology modelling is not MDA modelling
> 
> 3. Ontology modelling should be intended to create a kind of 'shared meaning' or 'shared understanding', i.e.,
> - try to reutilize as much as possible (its an open, shared knowledge space)
> - think carefully about introducing new terms (check their definitions against definitions of existing terms)
> 
> 
> Although at a first glance it seems to be practical to have many terms in one's own namespace. However, it will cause more difficulties when should utilise a dataset that is created with these ontologies (yes we can do ontology alignment, but this is more expensive than creating a 'shared meaning' direclty). Then we do not have much differences between existing database and API approaches, where everyone defines one's own knowledge space.
> Our goal is to create a shared knowledge space like we have shared languages, e.g., English, or?
> 
> Nevertheless, the freedom of the open knowledge space is that everyone can say everything about everything, and, hence, define as many new ontologies as one like to create. Whether this is practical or not, is another issue ...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Bo
> 
> 
> PS: I'm not seeking for the one and only gold standard ontology space ;)
> 
> 
> On 9/8/2011 6:35 PM, Bob Ferris wrote:
>> Hi Jarred,
>> 
>> at a first glance, here are my remarks:
>> 
>> 1. pne:Event, pne:sub_event seem to be a bit duplicated. I guess,
>> event:Event, event:sub_event are enough.
>> 
>> 2. pne:title can be replaced by, e.g., dc:title.
>> 
>> 3. pns:Person can be replaced by foaf:Person.
>> 
>> 4. pns:Organization can be replaced by foaf:Organization.
>> 
>> 5. pns:worksFor can be replaced by rel:employedBy [1].
>> 
>> 6. pns:Lcoation can be replaced by geo:SpatialThing
>> 
>> 7. Re. the tagging terms, I would recommend to have a look at the Tag
>> Ontology [2] or similar (see, e.g., [3])
>> 
>> 8. Re. biographical events I would recommend to have a look at the Bio
>> Vocabulary [4], e.g., bio:birth/bio:death.
>> 
>> 9. pns:label can be replaced by dc:title (or rdfs:label).
>> 
>> 10. pns:comment can be replaced by dc:description (or rdfs:comment).
>> 
>> 11. pns:describedBy can be replaced by wdrs:describedby [5].
>> 
>> 12. Re. bibliographic terms I would recommend to have a look at the Bibo
>> Ontology [6], e.g., bibo:Image (or foaf:Image), or the FRBR Vocabulary
>> [7], e.g., frbr:Text.
>> 
>> 13. pna:hasThumbnail can be replaced by foaf:thumbnail.
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>> Please help us to create 'shared understanding' by reutilising terms of
>> existing Semantic Web ontologies.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> 
>> Bo
>> 
>> 
>> [1] http://purl.org/vocab/relationship/employedBy
>> [2] http://www.holygoat.co.uk/projects/tags/
>> [3]
>> http://answers.semanticweb.com/questions/1566/ontologyvocabulary-and-design-patterns-for-tags-and-tagged-data
>> 
>> [4] http://purl.org/vocab/bio/0.1/
>> [5] http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s#describedby
>> [6] http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/
>> [7] http://purl.org/vocab/frbr/core#
>> 
>> On 9/8/2011 3:48 PM, Jarred McGinnis wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>> 
>>> The Press Association has just published our first draft of a 'news'
>>> ontology (_http://data.press.net/ontology_). For each of the ontologies
>>> documented, we've included the motivation for the ontologies as well as
>>> some of the design decisions behind it. Also, you can get the rdf or ttl
>>> by adding the extension. For example,
>>> http://data.press.net/ontology/asset.rdf<http://data.press.net/ontology/asset.rdf>gives
>>> 
>>> you the ontology described at http://data.press.net/ontology/asset/ ..
>>> 
>>> Have a look at the ontology and tell us what you think. We think it is
>>> pretty good but feel free to point out our mistakes. We will fix it. Ask
>>> why we did it one way and not another. We will give you an answer.
>>> 
>>> Paul Wilton of Ontoba has been working with us at the PA and has spelled
>>> out a lot of the guiding principles of this work at
>>> http://www.ontoba.com/blog.
>>> 
>>> The reasons behind this work were talked about at SemTech 2011 San
>>> Fransisco:
>>> http://semtech2011.semanticweb.com/sessionPop.cfm?confid=62&proposalid=4134
>>> 
>>> <http://semtech2011.semanticweb.com/sessionPop.cfm?confid=62&proposalid=4134>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Looking forward to hearing from you,
>>> 
>>> *Jarred McGinnis, PhD*
> 
>

Received on Friday, 9 September 2011 12:42:25 UTC