On 16 Jul 2010, at 00:42, Nathan wrote: > kidehen wrote: >> John, >> The relation: >> sioc:Space rdfs:subClassOf is:InfoService >> or even >> sioc:Space owl:equivalentClass is:InfoService >> Work fine. >> In either case its about a relationship between two Classes that offer >> a mechanism for referencing partitioned data spaces on HTTP >> networks :-) > > sorry! not really, if I recall correctly an is:InfoService can be anything, > on the web or not, a library for instance, a service you can't dereference > and use as a dataspace unless you're a human in the real world. >
Agreed, equivalentClass is imo wrong but the subclass would be ok, cf Bob's definition and my previous comment at [1] Alex. [1] http://groups.google.com/group/sioc-dev/msg/348596af5c61fc6b?dmode=source > ps: I may be wrong on my understanding of Bob's InfoService > > >> On Jun 25, 9:16 pm, John Breslin <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi Bob - >>> >>> Great to hear from you! >>> >>> Is an InfoService always going to store data or could it be something >>> non-computer related? For me, sioc:Space could be on the public Web or just >>> in some intranet storage - doesn't have to be on the Internet - but I'm not >>> sure what you mean by offline and offline... Maybe you could qualify? >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> John >>> >>> On 25/06/2010 15:20, "Bob Ferris" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> 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/inf... >>>> trunk/rdf/infoservice.n3 >>>> [2] >>>> http://infoserviceonto.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/infoserviceonto/inf... >>>> trunk/gfx/infoservice.gif >>>> [3] >>>> http://infoserviceonto.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/infoserviceonto/inf... >>>> trunk/gfx/is_-_musicbrainz_example.gif >>>> [4]https://infoserviceonto.wordpress.com/ >>>> [5] >>>> https://infoserviceonto.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/what-is-an-informati... >>>> e/ >>>> [6] >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/info-service-ontology-specification-gr... >>>> 0211f7fe52978 >>>> [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. > -- Dr. Alexandre Passant Digital Enterprise Research Institute National University of Ireland, Galway :me owl:sameAs <http://apassant.net/alex> . -- 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.
