Hi Bob, > 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 From the description of is:info_service here http://infoserviceonto.sourceforge.net/is/spec/infoservice.html#info_service I wasn't entirely sure whether it was always an "is made available by" relationship, but if that is the case, the subproperty relation sounds good. > 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 The dcterms:Agent class is intentionally very broad, and I think it is broader than the is:InfoService class. I think there are instances of dcterms:Agent who wouldn't be instances of is:InfoService http://infoserviceonto.sourceforge.net/is/spec/infoservice.html#InfoService so a subclass relation sounds more appropriate than equivalentClass? > 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 The dcterms:type property has rdfs:range of rdfs:Class. If you say is:info_service_type is an rdfs:subPropertyOf dcterms:type, then you end up saying (or allowing the inference) that values of the property are classes (rdfs:Class). As I understand it, at the moment that isn't the case, so I'm not sure that's really what you want, but it may be OK. > 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 .. so each value of dcterms:audience is an instance of dcterms:AgentClass. And since dcterms:AgentClass is a subclass of rdfs:Class, each instance of dcterms:AgentClass is also itself a class. (I think I got that right...) > 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) So... (from above): (i) an instance of is:InfoService is also an instance of dcterms:Agent. (ii) a value of the is:info_service_type property is an instance of rdfs:Class (as well as of the class is:InfoServiceType) Then I think you are saying there are two possibilities: (a) the class is:InfoServiceType is an instance of dcterms:AgentClass. That doesn't say anything more about instances of is:InfoServiceType (b) the class is:InfoServiceType is a subclass of dcterms:AgentClass. In that case, instances of is:InfoServiceType are also instances of dcterms:AgentClass and instances of rdfs:Class. If (a), I'm not sure the class of service _types_ is an AgentClass (a class of Agents) If (b), then that would mean, for example: - an individual is:InfoService (say, Facebook) would be a dcterms:Agent - it would be related by the ls:info_service_type property to an is:InfoServiceType of "social network services" - that is:InfoServiceType of "social network services" would be a rdfs:Class - that is:InfoServiceType of "social network services" would be a dcterms:AgentClass I hope I got that right (but I might have missed something). If so, yes, I think that would be consistent with DCMI's intention/definition for AgentClass. Pete