It's probably quite important to define various relation classes for the aggregated properties we tend to relate to a person. I would imagine this comes under standard upper ontologies. It would necessarily need to include definitions of FOAF and vCard so that we could classify across current data records. I doubt though that much more than this would be designed from the top down since it tends to be the evolution of current application data formats that will govern the actual graph structures used to represent and transport the data. So I would opt for an attempt to identify the current players in terms of each other using an upper ontology rather than try to force a single design on everybody. Matt On 13/09/2006, at 12:02 PM, AJ Chen wrote: In developing SPE ontology, I have tried to re-use FOAF and vCard, but unfortunately found little can can be re-used. One main reason is that, although they may have the terms, the definitions of these terms usually don't match what's required by the Person class in SPE ontology. The problem mostly comes from the "range" of a ObjectProperty or DataProperty. |
- A question on the vocabulary for 'persons' Ivan Herman
- Re: A question on the vocabulary for 'persons' Chimezie Ogbuji
- Re: A question on the vocabulary for 'persons' kei cheung
- Re: A question on the vocabulary for 'persons' AJ Chen
- Re: A question on the vocabulary for 'perso... Matt
- Re: A question on the vocabulary for 'perso... Ivan Herman
- Re: A question on the vocabulary for 'p... AJ Chen
- Re : A question on the vocabulary ... Pierre LINDENBAUM
- Re: A question on the vocabulary for 'persons' Marco Brandizi
- Re: A question on the vocabulary for 'persons' Alan Ruttenberg
- Re: A question on the vocabulary for 'persons' dirk . colaert
- Re: A question on the vocabulary for 'perso... Chimezie Ogbuji
- Re: A question on the vocabulary for 'p... helen . chen