Hi everybody,
I'm currently developing the Info Service Ontology [1,2,3,4], which
enables an association of arbitrary resources to its underlying
information service (see [5] for a definition of the term 'information
service').
Furthermore, such an information service could then be described,
categorized and rated (re. its information service quality) through the
is:InfoService concept[2] and its relations to more detailed description
concepts (see [3] for a proof-of-concept example).
As it becomes more and more important for data/knowledge consumer to
(maybe automatically) select the right/a good information service, which
delivers this information, an information service quality rating could
probably deliver information, which will hopefully help the
data/knowledge consumer to find a good choice.
These information service quality ratings could be done by several
information service quality rating agencies for different information
services (also based on maybe different Info Service Quality Ontology
specifications, e.g. [7] as an interesting information quality
classification).
Now to the important part, why I'm contacting your list ;)
How do you think about the relation of sioc:Space ("A Space is a place
where data resides, e.g. on a website, desktop, fileshare, etc. ") to
is:InfoService ("An Information Service is this part of an Information
System that serves data/knowledge/information to customers and collects
it from its contributors, to manage and store it by optionally using
administrators.").
I figured out sioc:Space as the most equal concept to is:InfoService.
However, I still think that the definition of sioc:Space maybe
concentrates on the 'online' domain, where on the other side, the
definition of is:InfoService should capture both domains - the 'online'
and 'offline' domain.
As already mentioned on the Info Service Ontology mailing list[6], there
are (more or less, so far as I know) three ways for defining the
association/relation between the concepts sioc:Space and is:InfoService:
1. :my_instance_of_something a sioc:Space , is:InfoService . # the
association is then only on the A-Box level
2. sioc:Space owl:equivalentClass is:InfoService . # this is maybe the
most strongest relation
3. sioc:Space rdfs:subClassOf is:InfoService . # this expresses a bit
stronger that sioc:Space is a part of is:InfoService
How do you think about building this relation?
In general, it might be enough to define a 'best practice' re.
suggesting association case '1.' for typing instances with a
is:InfoService association. However, I think building a stronger
relation might be better for reasoning options (following the principle:
tell the (dumb) machine as many as you know) and also a bit easier in
defining individuals.
So, please let me know, how you would create this ontology concept relation.
Thank you for all your (forthcoming) efforts.
Cheers,
Bob
[1]
http://infoserviceonto.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/infoserviceonto/infoservice/trunk/rdf/infoservice.n3
[2]
http://infoserviceonto.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/infoserviceonto/infoservice/trunk/gfx/infoservice.gif
[3]
http://infoserviceonto.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/infoserviceonto/infoservice/trunk/gfx/is_-_musicbrainz_example.gif
[4] https://infoserviceonto.wordpress.com/
[5]
https://infoserviceonto.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/what-is-an-information-service/
[6]
http://groups.google.com/group/info-service-ontology-specification-group/t/9820211f7fe52978
[7] http://w3.cyu.edu.tw/ccwei/PAPER/ERP/data%20quality%28JMIS%29.pdf
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"SIOC-Dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sioc-dev?hl=en.
