Hi Jodi, Thanks very much for this material, great job of sorting these issues. Sorry I couldn't join you on the call.
I want to chime in with my views on the *order of alignment*, which I think is important. I believe we want to align the most firmly-grounded (in both use cases and inter-group discussions) and simplest ontologies first, because they are more foundational and straightforward. You want to create a base, and then align step by step to that. On that principle I would proceed as follows: 1 - ORB + DRO first. (ORB + DRO = DRO' ). I think this is important to do first because it is so simple. ORB has also had the most discussion, very well-grounded in use cases. And there is another reason to do ORB + DRO first... 2 DRO' + Data-Experiment (DEXI) next. (DRO' + DEXI = DRO''). Why? Because (a) DEXI has already been under construction for a year, and includes a lot of grounding and cross group discussion, so it is quite well-grounded; and (b) DRO and DEXI have a definite and strong overlap, that can impact on details further on, when you bring along DOCO. 3 DRO'' + DOCO. Best Tim On Nov 24, 2010, at 2:10 PM, Jodi Schneider wrote: > Here's what we discussed in our call yesterday. Overall we're looking to > discuss and align DoCO, ORB, DRO, and the Middle-grained document structure, > in the context of life sciences research papers. > > We plan to talk again on Tuesday 7th Dec at 10 EST / 3 PM GMT (phone number > TBA). If you're interested, could you please let me know (off-list, > jodi.schnei...@deri.org)? We may be able to adjust the time in the future. > > -Jodi > > ======== > Yesterday Anita, Alex Garcia and I discussed the possibilities for alignment > between DoCO [1] and Medium-grained document structure [2]. DoCO is currently > being developed as part of SPAR [3]. > > Our general conclusion was that David Shotton's proposal (PDF attached) was > on target. However, we want to: > (1) use existing ontologies for references (BIBO? ...?) > (2) use existing ontologies for the header (PRISM? DC?...?) > (3) check the use of fabio: (e.g. for Experimental Protocol) > (4) check the use dro: > (5) check the use of sro: > > A few questions regarding DoCO came up. The combination of document > components, rhetorical components, rhetorical blocks, and structural patterns > confused us. We expected these to be several smaller ontologies. Another > question (David, perhaps you can answer this) is why you prefer imports into > a larger ontology, as opposed to building an application profile? Rhetorical > components, for instance, may already be handled adequately by SALT, SWAN, > and ScholOnto. > > We also discussed whether we wanted to get beyond ontologies to also address > authoring and/or textmining (with a schema or DTDs drawing from ontologies). > Anita pointed out that in our 3 use cases, 1 involves authoring. Further, for > authoring we're limited to continguous sections (as opposed to post-hoc > rhetorical component detection). > > [1] http://purl.org/spar/doco/ > [2] > http://esw.w3.org/HCLSIG/SWANSIOC/Actions/RhetoricalStructure/models/medium > [3] > http://opencitations.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/introducing-the-semantic-publishing-and-referencing-spar-ontologies/ > > > > <Shotton discussion paper on DRO.pdf> > <doco architecture.png>
