Hi,
I hope that I'm right here with my concern ;)
I'm currently designing the Info Service Ontology[7,8] - an ontology for
linking resources to its information service, which could be then
described more in detail, e.g. categorised or linked to quality ratings
from information service quality rating agencies. With this ontology it
should be possible to provide a basis, which, e.g. enable users the
opportunity to choose their preferred information services as data
sources for their knowledge base (or whatever) by selecting the
different properties of such an information service.
Therefore, I'm thinking currently much about the relation of the Info
Service Ontology and DC/ DCTerms (I already create a sub property from
dcterms:subject called is:main_subject). Here are my observations:
1. dc:publisher/ dcterms:publisher[1] - these properties are somehow
related/ similar to is:info_service
- description of dc:publisher/ dcterms:publisher: "An entity responsible
for making the resource available."
- dcterms:publisher has as range dcterms:Agent ("A resource that acts or
has the power to act.")
=> currently, I would tend to mark is:info_service as sub property of
dcterms:publisher
2. dcterms:Agent[2] - is somehow related/ similar to is:InfoService
- description of dcterms:Agent: "A resource that acts or has the power
to act."
=> currently, I would tend to mark is:InfoService as equivalent class or
sub class of dcterms:Agent
3. dc:type/ dcterms:type[3] - is somehow related/ similar to
is:info_service_type
- description of dc:type/ dcterms:type: "The nature or genre of the
resource." + "Recommended best practice is to use a controlled
vocabulary such as the DCMI Type Vocabulary [DCMITYPE]. To describe the
file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource, use the
Format element"
- DCMI Type Vocabulary leads to types like e.g. dctypens:Service[4],
which is also be somehow related/ similar to is:InfoService
=> currently, I would tend to mark is:info_service_type as sub property
of dcterms:type
4. dcterms:audience[5] - is also very interesting to propagate a
specific audience for, which the information service is intended
- description of dcterms:audience: "A class of entity for whom the
resource is intended or useful."
- this could may be used for the general information service description
and also for specific information service quality ratings
- it has the range of dcterms:AgentClass
5. dcterms:AgentClass[6] - as hook for audience classes/ groups/ stereotypes
- description of dcterms:AgentClass: "A group of agents." + "Examples of
Agent Class include groups seen as classes, such as students, women,
charities, lecturers."
=> is:InfoServiceType could also be seen as a dcterms:AgentClass (maybe
a sub class of it)
Please let me know what do you think about these relations. Thank you
very much for your forthcoming efforts to help to align the Info Service
Ontology to DC/DCTerms.
Cheers,
Bob
[1] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-publisher
[2] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#classes-Agent
[3] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-type
[4] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#H7
[5] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-audience
[6] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#classes-AgentClass
[7] http://purl.org/ontology/is/infoservice.html
[8] http://infoserviceonto.wordpress.com/
|