Re: [CODE4LIB] Ontology Question
Hiya, Is it okay to just use the classes I need or should I include the super classes which they belong to? I think we also need to define a few concepts here. What do you mean, include? As far as I can tell, you want to say something like Here's a few concepts we're using, and their definition is based off this other ontology over *there* (pointing), but that's not always the case, so just asking. Now, Karen is of course right in her take on it, but there's a little thing that require a bit of focus, and that's how this new ontology is going to be used. Is it one of these manual labour things where it doesn't actually require formal definitions as much as a human one, or is it (however you use the ontology) to be passed through a tool, or more formally passed through an inferencer? Regards, Alex -- Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps --- http://shelter.nu/blog/ -- -- http://www.google.com/profiles/alexander.johannesen ---
Re: [CODE4LIB] Ontology Question
Hi, So, what we are doing is establishing the relationships between people and organizations from a set of court cases where slaves sued for their freedom. Those interested can get a bit more information here: http://digital.wustl.edu/legalencodingproject/about.html. We're interested in people's roles in the court cases, but also their roles society and the organizations to which they belong. Our ontology will either be based of CIDOC-CRM or it will be based off some CIDOC concepts combined with some FOAF concepts. Optimally, I'd like to only use CIDOC if possible. To do that though, is it best to include all of the classes which a concept belongs to? For instance, I will use the class person. Is it necessary to include the super classes of Actor Persistent Item and CRM Entity? Best, Tim -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Alexander Johannesen Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 4:08 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Ontology Question Hiya, Is it okay to just use the classes I need or should I include the super classes which they belong to? I think we also need to define a few concepts here. What do you mean, include? As far as I can tell, you want to say something like Here's a few concepts we're using, and their definition is based off this other ontology over *there* (pointing), but that's not always the case, so just asking. Now, Karen is of course right in her take on it, but there's a little thing that require a bit of focus, and that's how this new ontology is going to be used. Is it one of these manual labour things where it doesn't actually require formal definitions as much as a human one, or is it (however you use the ontology) to be passed through a tool, or more formally passed through an inferencer? Regards, Alex -- Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps --- http://shelter.nu/blog/ -- -- http://www.google.com/profiles/alexander.johannesen ---
Re: [CODE4LIB] Ontology Question
Have you considered EAC-CPF? On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Lepczyk, Timothy tlepc...@wustl.eduwrote: Hi, So, what we are doing is establishing the relationships between people and organizations from a set of court cases where slaves sued for their freedom. Those interested can get a bit more information here: http://digital.wustl.edu/legalencodingproject/about.html. We're interested in people's roles in the court cases, but also their roles society and the organizations to which they belong. Our ontology will either be based of CIDOC-CRM or it will be based off some CIDOC concepts combined with some FOAF concepts. Optimally, I'd like to only use CIDOC if possible. To do that though, is it best to include all of the classes which a concept belongs to? For instance, I will use the class person. Is it necessary to include the super classes of Actor Persistent Item and CRM Entity? Best, Tim -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Alexander Johannesen Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 4:08 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Ontology Question Hiya, Is it okay to just use the classes I need or should I include the super classes which they belong to? I think we also need to define a few concepts here. What do you mean, include? As far as I can tell, you want to say something like Here's a few concepts we're using, and their definition is based off this other ontology over *there* (pointing), but that's not always the case, so just asking. Now, Karen is of course right in her take on it, but there's a little thing that require a bit of focus, and that's how this new ontology is going to be used. Is it one of these manual labour things where it doesn't actually require formal definitions as much as a human one, or is it (however you use the ontology) to be passed through a tool, or more formally passed through an inferencer? Regards, Alex -- Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps --- http://shelter.nu/blog/ -- -- http://www.google.com/profiles/alexander.johannesen ---
Re: [CODE4LIB] Ontology Question
Quoting Lepczyk, Timothy tlepc...@wustl.edu: Hi All, I'm putting together an ontology for a collection either using CIDOC-CRM, or a mix of CIDOC-CRM and FOAF. I don't need the whole CIDOC-CRM ontology. Is it okay to just use the classes I need or should I include the super classes which they belong to? I'll give you my understanding of this area, but I can't guarantee it is correct. Presumably if you are re-using properties or classes that have been officially defined elsewhere (meaning defined in RDF/OWL, preferably by the owners of the property), then your use does not change the official definition. You may add it to your ontology, but it is the home ontology for that property (defined by the URI) that determines its meaning and relationships. Assuming this is true, then you do not need to include related super- or sub-classes because the property in your ontology is just a another use of that property. The relationship to other classes carries along with it. You *can* add relationships, such as making a CIDOC-CRM property a super or sub class of a property that you define. The CIDOC-CRM folks and others can choose to use or ignore anything you do. kc Thanks for the help, Tim - - - - - - - - - Timothy A. Lepczyk Digital Repository-Metadata Librarian John M. Olin Library Washington University Phone: 314.935.8934 Website: http://www.digital.wustl.edu/ -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [CODE4LIB] Ontology Question
Thanks, Karen, that's the direction I was going to go, but just wasn't sure. Best, Tim -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 2:03 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Ontology Question Quoting Lepczyk, Timothy tlepc...@wustl.edu: Hi All, I'm putting together an ontology for a collection either using CIDOC-CRM, or a mix of CIDOC-CRM and FOAF. I don't need the whole CIDOC-CRM ontology. Is it okay to just use the classes I need or should I include the super classes which they belong to? I'll give you my understanding of this area, but I can't guarantee it is correct. Presumably if you are re-using properties or classes that have been officially defined elsewhere (meaning defined in RDF/OWL, preferably by the owners of the property), then your use does not change the official definition. You may add it to your ontology, but it is the home ontology for that property (defined by the URI) that determines its meaning and relationships. Assuming this is true, then you do not need to include related super- or sub-classes because the property in your ontology is just a another use of that property. The relationship to other classes carries along with it. You *can* add relationships, such as making a CIDOC-CRM property a super or sub class of a property that you define. The CIDOC-CRM folks and others can choose to use or ignore anything you do. kc Thanks for the help, Tim - - - - - - - - - Timothy A. Lepczyk Digital Repository-Metadata Librarian John M. Olin Library Washington University Phone: 314.935.8934 Website: http://www.digital.wustl.edu/ -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
