Open anarchivist opened 7 years ago
Counter proposal from discussion with @cmh2166:
foaf:Agent
/foaf:Group
/foaf:Organization
as is.acl:agentGroup
as fine as its range only entails that its subject <>
is <> a vcard:Group .
ex:SoftwareAgent
as follows:ex:SoftwareAgent a rdfs:Class ;
rdfs:label "Software Agent" ;
rdfs:subClassOf foaf:Agent ;
owl:equivalentClass prov:SoftwareAgent .
pros of option 1:
cons of option 1:
pros of option 2:
cons of option 2:
Also, is this assuming that Hydra system Users & instance data metadata Agents are both using this model (which is a goal I think)? So Agents that work with WebACL but also are Agents as RWOs upon which we can associated Authorities, indicate at technical metadata creators (software), descriptive metadata Agents (authors, publishers, etc)?
Also, is this assuming that Hydra system Users & instance data metadata Agents are both using this model (which is a goal I think)?
Yes.
So Agents that work with WebACL but also are Agents as RWOs upon which we can associated Authorities, indicate at technical metadata creators (software), descriptive metadata Agents (authors, publishers, etc)?
They can, yes.
Based on these options I'm leaning towards option 2.
Known classes of agents needed, with current definitions:
foaf:Person
foaf:Agent
foaf:Organization
foaf:Agent
foaf:Group
foaf:Agent
acl:agentGroup
(see FCREPO-2275) has rangevcard:Group
Proposals:
prov:SoftwareAgent
for Software Agenthybox:SoftwareAgent
(see detail here)Questions:
foaf:Group
orvcard:Group
? 😞