Re: [SMI-ontos] A comparison of the SWAN Collections Ontology and the Ordered List Ontology

[Paolo C. <pao...@gm...>]

Dear Bob,
I am happy to see this draft of comparison, I wish we had this discussion
before so we could have a unique model.

I did not have time to read the document carefully. Therefore, the first
thought are general.

I've been doing public comparison and alignment work for W3C Working Groups
many times (see for instance http://www.w3.org/TR/hcls-swansioc/ ) and a
good suggestion is to use a wiki first. It is more democratic - on the
contrary of a PDF - and people can fix the mistakes/inaccuracies rapidly.
Otherwise it becomes your personal view on something and will generate long
and time expensive threads of emails.

One example: SWAN Collections, besides the name, is totally general. There
are no project dependencies in the OWL. In fact, as I was telling you by
email is used by at least 10 groups that contacted me many times in the past
asking me questions to understand and in order to avoid creating another
collection ontology. These includes: SWAN, FaBIO the FRBR based
bibiliographic ontology, EARMARKS for example...

Also, you need to define a goal. What is this comparison for? Are you
willing to spend energy to collapse the models? Are you ready eventually to
drop yours? Every time I am starting a comparison process I know it might
end up with dropping my model. For instance that has been the result of the
process for integrating SWAN with CiTO:
http://www.w3.org/wiki/HCLSIG/SWANSIOC/Actions/SWANCiTO . The result has
been to reduce the number of redundant models and have an ongoing
collaboration between the two groups.

Would you be ready to eventually, if it makes sense, drop your model?
Otherwise I don't see why to start the process as you seem happy with your
model and us with ours.

Best
Paolo





On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Bob Ferris <za...@sm...> wrote:

> Hello everybody,
>
> I compiled a comparison of the SWAN Collections Ontology and the Ordered
> List Ontology. Please let me know what you think about this comparison. It
> is attached as a PDF file to this e-mail.
>
> Cheers
>