In message <[email protected]>,
Yves Raimond <[email protected]> writes
The disjoint statement between agent and factor defines factors as
something that doesn't have an active role in the event.
But are necessary for the event to take place? Or play a significant role in
the event, so that if they were not present, the event would have been
different? Or something?
Sorry, missed that comment for some reason. In this ontology, events
are "just" arbitrary classifications of space--time regions. Hence you
can perfectly classify any such region ("I thought about RDF over the
last ten years", "I was walking to the office from 8 to 9 this
morning"). And yes, it is purposely loose.
Another ontology/vocabulary which is centred around events is the CIDOC
CRM (Conceptual Reference Model). [1] It is "a formal ontology intended
to facilitate the integration, mediation and interchange of
heterogeneous cultural heritage information", and comes out of the
museums community. There is an OWL representation [2] which has been
developed by a group at Erlangen-Nuremburg University. It certainly
doesn't lack definitions ;-)
I would be interested to hear what Linked Data folks make of it as a
potential framework for expressing more general event-related
assertions, i.e. going beyond its stated scope. I would also value a
more expert opinion than my own as to whether the current expression of
the CRM (either the OWL or RDF [3] version) is "fit for purpose" as a
Linked Data ontology.
Richard
[1] http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/
[2]
http://www8.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/IMMD8/Services/cidoc-crm/index.htm
l
[3] http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/rdfs/cidoc_crm_v5.0.1.rdfs
--
Richard Light
