Re: [namedgraphs] [expertfinder-dev] Re: Expertise and Trust Vocabs

[Alexandre P. <al...@pa...>]

Hi Tom,

(CC-ed to the named graphs mailing-list as that's related)

On 7/2/07, Tom Heath <tom...@gm...> wrote:
> Hi Alex :)
>
> > > I'm not sure if you've seen my draft Hoonoh ontology Andreas. It takes
> > > a slightly different approach, but fulfils the same kind of role. For
> > > example, using the ExpertiseRelationship class and associated
> > > properties one can describe an expertise relationship between a
> > > foaf:Person and a Topic (hoonoh:Topic, subclass of skos:Concept), and
> > > assign this relationship a value. I hope that it's a relatively clean
> > > bit of modelling, but would be pleased to get feedback.
>
> > One thing that must be thinked about is also provenance of each
> > ExpertiseRelationship statements. Once in general it is useful to have
> > this for any RDF statements this is even more true here, when dealing
> > with trust.
>
> Totally agreed.
>
> > Eg, I can say that X is expert in Y at 0.8 but one may think he's only 0.2.
> > Don't we need a definedBy property ? (w/ hoonoh:ExpertiseRelationship
> > as domain and foaf:Person as range), or the inverse, eg
> > definesRelationship
>
> We'll be using Named Graphs to achieve this effect, which I think is
> technically the right way to go and saves introducing another
> property.
That's also what I thaught, but I'm not sure how to manage provenance
of relationships in a case we export all of them in a single page, eg
[1].
Must/Can we use swp:authority for each statement URI contained in [1]
(see [2]) - or did I missed something with named graphs and RDF/XML ?

Best,

Alex.

[1] http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/tom/tmp/sample-hoonoh-instances.rdf
[2] http://sites.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/suhl/bizer/TriG/

>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom.
>