Open ghost opened 4 years ago
@jonquet
AgroPortal currently does not offer any mechanism to evaluate qualified references from semantic artefacts to other databases. However, AgroPortal's metadata model offers two properties to inform about project using (bpm:projects) or organization endorsing (omv:endorsedBy) an ontology. These properties can be used to store the general information than a database/organization/project that uses a semantic artefact.
AgroPortal metadata edition user interface enforces the use of nonambigous values as much as possible when assigning metadata property values (e.g., CC license URIs, Lexvo language URIs, existing ontologies in AgroPortal). Mappings are stored in a triple store and can be handled as a retrievable object with their provenance information.
+1 - this is important to allow shared models to emerge across domain boundaries.
Note that there are multiple forms of mappings: Ontology mappings Terminology (concept-concept) mappings Ontology->structure mappings Structure-structure transformation mappings Meta-model mappings (class->instance - OWL punning )
treating these as "first-class" semantic resources with their own governance context is necessary. The challenge here is around the "Findable" principle - what resources are responsible for knowing what and where such mappings are so they can be discovered?
BP-Rec. 4: Create mappings validated by domain experts
Description
Semantic artefacts and in particular concept definitions vary within and between communities. This diversity of definitions generates semantic ambiguities which hampers interoperability between ontologies. To support such interoperability, explicit mappings should be generated by knowledge experts and validated by domain experts. As stated in P-Rec. 12 & P-Rec. 13, these mappings should be serialised with standard formats and be published.
Existing recommendations : N/A
Stakeholder : Practitioner