[XESAM] Ontology sketch. Feedback needed. This time with attachment.

[Antoni Mylka]

Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen pisze:
> 
>  * contributor (DC)
>  * creator (DC)
>  * description (DC)
>  * language (DC)
>  * publisher (DC)
>  * subject (DC)
>  * title (DC)
>  * license (an extensible vocabulary with predefined values GPL, LPGL, 
> MIT etc)
>  * uri
>  * category (a controled vocabulary that maps to the cats in the 
> extended onto)

This particular one may be tricky. This "controlled" vocabulary should 
be extensible. I think it's not a good idea to have to agree on all 
categories at the very beginning. I would rather go for the notion of 
type. A resource may be a file, email whatever. This field would point 
at a type of a resource. (In NIE it would be expressed with rdf:type 
pointing to an URI of a class (like Document, File or whatever), in the 
simplified XESAM "language" it could point at some type identifier).

The question if you want to have a simple list of types, or an 
inheritance tree of types remains open.

>  * mime
>  * creationDate
>  * modificationDate
> 
> 
> With this simple onto you can actually do quite a bit of nifty stuff. 
> With this in place it might also be easier to agree on extended ontology 
> as Antoni already suggested.
> 

I'm all for. With this set (or something similar) it should be possible 
to agree on a 1 to 1 mapping between NIE-core and XESAM-core.

The properties from the extended part of the ontology could be mapped 
via the subproperty relations to the ones from core (as much as 
possible). A simple mechanism could realise the basic inference rule.

IF a prop b AND prop subPropertyOf prop2 THEN a prop2 b

This shouldn't be too difficult and time-consuming, even in systems 
where performance is a priority.

Antoni Mylka
antoni.mylka at dfki.de