*** This is the text of a proposal prepared by Tom Baker and Karen Coyle
for a session at DC 2013. We present it here in hopes of generating some
preliminary discussion of the topic (as well as questions and
corrections to our proposal).****
Session proposal: Application Profiles as an alternative to OWL Ontologies
Convenors: Tom Baker, Karen Coyle
Since 2000, much of the research and development in
the Dublin Core community has focused on the concept of
Application Profile [1]. The Singapore Framework for Dublin
Core Application Profiles [2] and the related Description Set
Profile Constraint Language [3], both based on the DCMI Abstract
Model [4], describe a method for expressing metadata patterns
in platform-independent templates. Application Profiles
describe the structure and contents of data. By definition,
Application Profiles use RDF vocabularies declared elsewhere
and merely specify how the terms of those vocabularies are
constrained and packaged in matching sets of instance data.
Ontologies expressed using the Web Ontology Language (OWL),
in contrast, typically define an (inevitably reductionist)
model of the world by declaring what classes of things are
found in that world, their properties, and their relationships.
These can be leveraged to infer additional information
about things that are described using the ontology.
In Application Profiles, constraints are expressed as
constraints on data, not as constraints on the underlying
RDF vocabularies. Classes and properties can be reused in
different application profiles without changing their underlying
definition or affecting how they are used elsewhere. OWL
Ontologies, in contrast, typically define constraints as an
integral part of the vocabulary itself. To describe something
using vocabulary from an OWL Ontology is to implicitly accept
its underlying model of the universe.
This session examines how the dual requirements of
(data-oriented) quality control and (Web-oriented)
interoperability are addressed using these two approaches.
This topic is particularly timely in light of interest in
RDF validation in the W3C community and of the role of
community profilesť in the data model of the Bibliographic
Framework Transition Initiative. [5] Validation schemas can
ensure the quality of data in ways not requiring inference
schemas such as OWL Ontologies.
Whether patterns are expressed using constraints on data
or as constraints on a model of reality can have unintended
consequences when data is consumed in the Linked Data cloud.
The choice between Application Profiles and OWL Ontologies
depends on how particular data is intended to be used.
The session will try to achieve a common view on the strengths
and weaknesses of the two approaches and identify next steps
in the development of simple and practical conventions for
Application Profiles.
[1] http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue25/app-profiles
[2] http://dublincore.org/documents/singapore-framework/
[3] http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-dsp/
[4] http://dublincore.org/documents/abstract-model/
[5] http://bibframe.org/
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
|