Choosing the properties to document the ontology

[FabienGandon]

Hi this issue is to discuss possibility of using properties more precise than the RDFS ones to document the ontology.

For instance:

• skos:prefLabel, skos:altLabel, skos:hiddenLabel, skos:note, skos:changeNote, skos:definition, skos:editorialNote, skos:example, skos:historyNote and skos:scopeNote are each instances of owl:AnnotationProperty and could be used on classes and properties
• in the Dublin Core we have a RDF properties (no annotation properpty 😢 ) such as dc:source and other https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dcmi-terms/
• we could also introduce our own annotation properties o:issue, o:scenario, etc. for instance in this ontology : https://sparql.cwrc.ca/ontologies/cwrc#CompetencyQuestion

[DrLeturc]

One proposition of usage :

• skos:definition : to give the clear definition of the concept
• skos:example : to give example of applications
• rdfs:comment : to give any additional comment to the concept
• rdfs:label : to precise the label
• I found VOAG ontology : intended to specify licensing, attribution, provenance and governance of an ontology they proposed e.g. voag:hasIssue but the link do not work.. There is no real ontology that refers explicitly to the Github Issue and GitHub items in general..
• rdfs:seeAlso : to give external pointers to the concept.
• skos:note is to broad and do not see the distinction with our usage of rdfs:comment maybe we could use it to emphasize an important point on the class/property e.g. "Do not instantiate this class" for hmas:transitivelyContains. We need a property to precise the good usage of the concept. it could be skos:note.
• dct:source : to precise the origin of a concept we used it to refer to a comment in an issue.. dct:source s def is "The described resource may be derived from the related resource in whole or in part." we could use it also to refer to the article that gives the definition e.g. for Artifact, Agent, etc.
• It seems that there is no property to refer to "MotivatingScenario", "Story", or "Scenario". It should be interesting to create our own ontology annotation ? It might be cleaner. Proposing also a way to refer from a "MotivatingScenario" to "Personas" involved in (cf Issue https://github.com/HyperAgents/ns.hyperagents.org/issues/59).. It is something that is missing in the Polifonia project.
• dct:license to refer to the license used https://github.com/HyperAgents/ns.hyperagents.org/issues/66.

[FabienGandon]

This issue is now related to #89 and could be merged in one issue

I would like to propose that we build and host at Inria an "Ontology Annotation Ontology"

Its namespace would be http://ns.inria.fr/oao Its prefix would be oao: Its content would essentially be annotations properties such as, for example:

• oao:profileOWL
• oao:relatedScenario
• oao:relatedIssue
• ...

[DrLeturc]

I'm closing this issue.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9417146/merge-different-issues-on-github