RE: [ISSUE-2] Module suggestions for META-SHARE RDF vocabulary

Dear Dave and all,

We agree that a separation into modules will help the discussion, and we
basically agree with your proposal.

One point as regards the RESOURCE_TYPE module: all LRs are described via the
same set of "administrative/descriptive" components + an additional set of
more specific components, depending on their resourceType AND mediaType
values - the latter set corresponds to all the components included in the
resourceComponentType part. So, there's a specific set of components for
corpora, lexical/conceptual resources, language descriptions and
tools/services (the four resource types recognized by META-SHARE); inside
these, we have separate components, depending on the mediaType, so we have
text corpora components, video corpora components, audio corpora components,
but also lexical/conceptual text components etc. Inside each of these
combinations, some elements are shared (e.g. linguality and language, time
classification etc.) or can be similar (e.g. there are similar
classification components for text, audio, video and image). So, it might be
more convenient to separate RESOURCE_TYPE and MEDIA_TYPE modules. What do
you think?

We also suggest that we add three further modules: ORGANIZATION, PROJECT and
DOCUMENT - corresponding to the organizationInfo, projectInfo &
documentationInfo parts of the original model.

Best,
Penny

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Lewis [mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie] 
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 12:38 PM
To: public-ld4lt@w3.org
Subject: [ISSUE-2] Module suggestions for META-SHARE RDF vocabulary

Hi all,
At the last call we discussed the template for the meta-share ontology as
kindly initiated by Jorge:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15SE4_qAqYFostmD52uKxpkCPZh1f5TrPeoXK
NTlDYpQ/edit#gid=0

with further information at:
https://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt/wiki/Meta-Share_OWL_metamodel

We discussed modules for this to help break down the taks and to partition
parts that might take more time to agree or need involvement by different
subgroups compared to others.

We already agreed to have a CORE component and split out a LICENSES module,
but had asked for other suggestions.

I'd like to propose two further modules:

RESOURCE_TYPE corresponding to the resrouceComponentType part of the
meta-share schema: 
http://www.meta-share.org/portal/knowledgebase/Resourcecomponenttype

and

USAGE_TYPE corresponding to the usageInfo part of the meta-share schema:
http://www.meta-share.org/portal/knowledgebase/Usageinfo

These contain large enumerations that could both be subject to ongoing
debate and likely candidate for extension/specialization. By separating
these out we can avoid such debate delaying work on the CORe module.

Should we add these as modules to the spreadsheet?

 From an ontology modelling viewpoint, how should we manage the modelling in
these proposed modules, would a class taxonomy be a better approach and an
enumeration?

Kind Regards,
Dave

Received on Thursday, 22 May 2014 09:56:20 UTC