small adjustments for BLMP

[eroux]

In the perspective of the BLMP building its UI by reading certain patterns in the ontology, it would be helpful if:

• adm:OutlineType was a subclass of :Type
• adm:Product was a subclass of :Entity

[berger-n]

I have the same issue about :Taxonomy

[xristy]

what should :Taxonomy be a subclass of?

[berger-n]

:Type I think

[xristy]

what is problem with being subclass of :Entity? :Taxonomy is intended to be the class of organizations of tokens that are used to classify such as classifying :Works but could be used to classify :Places and so on.

[berger-n]

why not subclass of both :Entity and :Type ?

[berger-n]

(the thing is that http://purl.bdrc.io/resource/EightMinorKagyuTraditions http://purl.bdrc.io/resource/EightPracticeLineages http://purl.bdrc.io/resource/FourMainKagyuTraditions http://purl.bdrc.io/resource/TraditionTaxonomy seem to be possible choices for a :Taxonomy, in the same way than :GenderFemale, :GenderMale, :GenderNotSpecified for a :Gender which is a subclass of :Type)

[xristy]

originally the idea was that :Entitys would be the top level ideas / concepts that that ontology is about and the :Types would be collections of individuals that are the objects of triples about :Entitys. It would an instance of cognitive dissonance for me to have :Taxonomy be a subclass of both :Entity and :Type.

What is the problem that having :Taxonomy as a subclass of :Entity creates for organizing BLMP functionality?

[berger-n]

every :NamedIndividual in the .owl file has a class that inherits from :Type (except these four which class is :Taxonomy) and this is the test used to choose which component to use to render the corresponding property...

(BTW for me the cosmic dissonance - lapsus for "cognitive dissonance" sorry - might be that :Taxonomy is the only :Entity that does not correspond to a root directory where .ttl files are stored in... ^^)

when loading the ontology the idea is to iterate over :NamedIndividuals so as we can know for each :Type which values it can take (and automatically use them as a popup menu, :Gender is a good example)

[berger-n]

can you think of an exemple resource that makes use of :Taxonomy ? I have some time ahead before my grep returns something... ah, spoken too fast, G1TLMTGA000001 and G1TLMTGB000001 seem to be the only two that do : both with adm:place_TLM_taxonomy bdr:O1TLMXXX000011;

but I already agree that it may not be necessary at all from a technical point of view that :Taxonomy is a subclass of :Type

as a matter of fact, I understand it would even be some kind of mistake to do so, and that there may be a taxonomy root directory in the future

but what to do of these four then ? do they correspond to an exhaustive enumeration of something ? why are they ?

[berger-n]

(sorry - did not refresh the page - seems that the discussion is not over yet... ^^)

[xristy]

There's a lot to say about the intended role of taxonomy in supporting BLMP and search. Are you familiar with "A Buddhist Digital Ontology"? I just shared it with you in case you have not yet explored the section on taxonomy.

The two examples that you discovered G1TLMTGA000001 and G1TLMTGB000001 are monastic libraries that have define their own taxonomies for cataloging holdings and those taxonomies have not been encoded yet.

There is also the taxonomy of traditions that is reasonable to consider for use in subject classification and there is the use of taxonomy to organize :Place types.

Then there is the need to define and encode taxonomies for subject classification and genre classification in general.

Some of this is discussed in the narrative on the ontology that I just shared with you.

[berger-n]

thanks for the link I indeed need a deeper look into this