[XESAM] Ontology sketch. Feedback needed. This time with attachment.
antoni.mylka at dfki.uni-kl.de
Fri Jun 1 01:44:02 PDT 2007
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 at dfki.de
More information about the xdg