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

[Bob F. <za...@sm...>]

Hi Paolo,

Am 14.03.2011 15:36, schrieb Paolo Ciccarese:
> 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.

Yes, of course. Unfortunately, the former discussion (where I announced 
the Ordered List Ontology [8,9,10]) ended with the result that they both 
have their right and purpose to exist. That is why, I previously don't 
investigated efforts into a mixing.

> 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.

Yes, you are right. Therefore, I set-up a wiki and deployed the content 
of the PDF document in a wiki page, which can be found at [1].
I hope everybody can get access to it (I guess, you need a sourceforge 
account for it). Please contact me, if there are any problem (so far I 
only sometimes noticed time-outs from the sourceforge server, however, 
this was currently for me the easiest way to set up a wiki).

> One example: SWAN Collections, besides the name, is totally general.
> There are no project dependencies in the OWL.

Yes, however, the abstract is probably a bit deterrently. This text 
maybe can be put in a background section.

> 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.

I have no strong opinion, which ontology we should deprecate. Albeit, I 
can imagine one ontology that includes the modelling capacities of both. 
So, if we come to an agreement re. the expressiveness of the vocabulary, 
we can do a mixing and promote this result.

The Ordered List Ontology is currently reused (AFAIK) in the Stories 
Ontology [2,3] and the Sport Ontology [4,5] showed some interest in 
apply the Ordered List Ontology, too.
Besides, I utilized this vocabulary in the Play Back Ontology [6] and 
the Recommendation Ontology [7]. That is why, changing the latter 
dependencies wouldn't be such a problem.

Finally, I'm quite interested in that the ontology is properly deployed 
and promoted (I noticed there some drawbacks with the SWAN Collections 
Ontology).

Cheers,


Bob


[1] 
https://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/smiy/index.php?title=A_Comparision_of_the_SWAN_Collections_Ontology_and_the_Ordered_List_Ontology
[2] http://www.contextus.net/stories/
[3] http://tobyz.net/tobyzstuff/projects/bbcstories
[4] http://www.bbc.co.uk/ontologies/sport/2011-02-17.shtml
[5] http://twitter.com/silveroliver/status/40712231444287488
[6] http://purl.org/ontology/pbo/core#
[7] http://purl.org/ontology/rec/core#
[8]
http://groups.google.com/group/music-ontology-specification-group/browse_frm/thread/dfcb68d7336394fa?tvc=1&q=Ordered+List+Ontology 

especially
http://groups.google.com/group/music-ontology-specification-group/msg/f7e893c9090a00e2
[9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2010Jun/0173.html
[10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2010Jun/0174.html