search

buda-base / owl-schema

BDRC Ontology Schema
11 stars 2 forks source link

opaque identifiers for some individuals #101

Open eroux opened 5 years ago

eroux commented 5 years ago

I think some individuals defined in the owl file could benefit from an opaque name, for instance instead of bdr:PlaceTypePilgrimageSite could be renamed bdr:PlaceType0001. I would extend that to the lineages, the licenses (I think bdr:LicenseCopyrighted is not a good name), the traditions and the non-standard scripts... The main reason is that the English names we currently have may not be the most appropriates and having a supposedly opaque URI being some erroneous English name is not very satisfying... wdyt?

xristy commented 5 years ago

I agree w.r.t. :PlaceType. I'm curious about :Tradition and :Lineage. Do these concepts occur outside the Tibetan domain or should we have :TibetanTradition and :TibetanLineage?

I'm agnostic about adm:License in general since they seem to be reasonably rendered in English. Is the specific issue w/ bdr:LicenseCopyrighted that it would be better named bdr:LicenseCopyright or is it that the comment says:

Use it for works under copyright that do not say anything about the copyrights or saying All Rights Reserved.

which is technically not an assertion of (c). This brings to mind whether it is relevant to record under what jurisdiction a (c) is asserted.

eroux commented 5 years ago

ok. I think bdr:LicenseCopyrighted would be best renamed as bdr:LicenseAllRightsReserved. Technically a work under CC-BY is also under copyright, it's just that some of the copy rights are given to the public / waived under some conditions.

xristy commented 5 years ago

I'll rename to bdr:LicenseAllRightsReserved.

xristy commented 5 years ago

I renamed :PlaceType jndividuals to opaque ids. I'll wait on using opaque ids on :TibetanTradition and :TibetanLineageType until at least the `bo-x-ewts are entered on this items