Definition of `:describes`

HyperAgents / hmas

An ontology to describe Hypermedia Multi-Agent Systems, interactions, and organizations.

https://purl.org/hmas/

1 stars 0 forks source link

Definition of `:describes` #26

Closed maximelefrancois86 closed 2 years ago

maximelefrancois86 commented 2 years ago

The definition of :describes is:

https://github.com/HyperAgents/ns.hyperagents.org/blob/9873fda35242e75081755bafcfc18b0c2e91a307/src/core.ttl#L134

The definition suggests that :describes should be used to link a resource profile to its signifiers, which isn't the case really. From what I understand:

:describes is used to link a :Signifier to the :Affordance it describes
:describes is used to link a :ResourceProfile to some agent, artefact, workspace, or the affordances thereof it describes

maximelefrancois86 commented 2 years ago

Correction after reading

https://github.com/HyperAgents/ns.hyperagents.org/issues/13#issuecomment-1028083277

:describes is used to link a :Signifier to the :Affordance it describes
:describes is used to link a :ResourceProfile to some artefact, workspace, or the affordances thereof it describes

FabienGandon commented 2 years ago

In foaf: the links between a foaf:PersonalProfileDocument and its maker and main topic (which are often the same) are foaf:maker and foaf:primaryTopic. If hmas:describes is ambiguous we should deactivate it and name the alternative differently at least temporarily.

e.g. 1 hmas:hasForTopic between hmas:ResourceProfile and a rdfs:Resource e.g. 2 hmas:signals between hmas:Signifier and a rdfs:Affordance

(just examples)

maximelefrancois86 commented 2 years ago

We agree to deactivate the property :describes and name two alternatives differently.

We agree with :signals between :Signifier and a ??? (it the object of :signals an affordance ? see #41 )

No agreement on the naming for a property between :ResourceProfile and rdfs:Resource.

We suggest one of:

:isProfileFor, which makes it clear that the domain is a Profile.
to use ex. :about, copy the definition from schema.org: "The subject matter of the content.", and define no domain.

DrLeturc commented 2 years ago

I don't see any counter arguments for the propositions.

Can we, for example, consider:isProfileFor rdfs:subPropertyOf :about where the domain is a :ResourceProfile ?

maximelefrancois86 commented 2 years ago

I would keep them separate for now. (no subpropertyof axiom)

@DrLeturc , would you mind implementing :isProfileFor, and let's just reuse schema:about without redefining it

FabienGandon commented 2 years ago

just to say that an alternative to schema:about is foaf:primaryTopic

"The primary topic of some page or document. " http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_primaryTopic

it is the inverse of foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf "A document that this thing is the primary topic of. " http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_isPrimaryTopicOf

one could also note dc:subject "the topic of the resource." http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/subject

andreiciortea commented 2 years ago

Agreed on :isProfileFor. Small point (English-related): shouldn't this be :isProfileOf? cc @maximelefrancois86 @DrLeturc

Is the proposal for :signals still current? Per more recent discussions, if we do not define the term "affordance" formally in our ontology, then we do not need to define :signals. @danaivach please weigh in here.

gnardin commented 2 years ago

EMSE Saint-Etienne agrees with :isProfileOf signals is not relevant anymore since we will not define the term Affordance