Hi This is not so far away from what I did with Enhanced Content Models. I am surprised you did not reference that in any way. Anyway.
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 01:20 +0100, Chris Wilper wrote: > Hi Ben, > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Benjamin Armintor <[email protected]> wrote: > > http://fedora-commons.org/jira/browse/FCREPO-539 > > > > I'm drafting an ontology, and have a few questions for the developer > > community: > > I would be interested to hear others' opinions on this also. Here are mine. > > > 1. How important is an OWL ontology versus an RDF schema (eg, the > > Dublin Core scheme)? > > Owl seems cleaner. And it has the convenient breakdown of > less-expressive to most-expressive versions. > > 2. If OWL is specifically desired, what flavor should be the target? > > I'm inclined to dismiss OWL (full) out of hand. DL has some support > > (cf. http://jena.sourceforge.net/inference/#owl). Lite will put some > > severe constraints on what the schema can assert. > > Lite would be my preference, if it can be done, since RDF expressed in > owl lite is easier to reason about. > > But if you want to get into treating fedora-model:hasModel as a > sub-property of rdf:type, that's automatically OWL Full, if I remember > right. > > IMO, the important first step is to get the basic object/datastream > properties in machine readable form. By being really nasty you can express anything from Owl DL in OWL LITE. Parsing OWL lite is not easier. Anyway. Going with OWL lite is the right way. If you have to break with OWL lite, document the cases and the reasons. That way almost the entire ontology will be in LITE. And yes, fedora-model:hasModel (a object property) as subtype of rdf:type (a simpler property, dont recall the type) makes it OWL full. If only rdf:type was an object property. If that is the only break with the FULL, a specialised parser, or an XSLT could perform the rewrite before parsing. > > > 3. Should the schema describe only the core system relationships (see > > http://fedora-commons.org/confluence/display/FCR30/Triples+in+the+Resource+Index > > ), or should it include the object properties with URIs in the > > fedora-model namespace? If the latter, should all the properties the > > fcrepo code knows about be included (see > > http://fedora-commons.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/fedora-commons/fedora/trunk/fcrepo-common/src/main/java/fedora/common/rdf/FedoraModelNamespace.java?view=log > > )? That would drag some datastream properties into the mix. > It should be them all. It should be the ontology for all the stuff that does not go in RELS-* and thus under the governance of ECM. Regards > I think having them all would be helpful. > > Thanks, > Chris > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Join us December 9, 2009 for the Red Hat Virtual Experience, > a free event focused on virtualization and cloud computing. > Attend in-depth sessions from your desk. Your couch. Anywhere. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/redhat-sfdev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-commons-developers mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fedora-commons-developers ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Join us December 9, 2009 for the Red Hat Virtual Experience, a free event focused on virtualization and cloud computing. Attend in-depth sessions from your desk. Your couch. Anywhere. http://p.sf.net/sfu/redhat-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ Fedora-commons-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fedora-commons-developers
