Maybe the most useful insights that can be derived from the COOS ontology will come from more meaningful / explicit relationships
between capabilities and activities (e.g., <enables / informs> ) and between information objects and activities
(e.g., , or -- equivalently, as currently:
, etc.).
and
Other interesting meaningful relationships could be between actors and activities (e.g., , etc.),
and between actors and information objects (e.g., <isCustodianOf/isOwnerOf>).
While these relations are of interest in the knowledge domain, COOS is a core ontology; do we consider these properties to be in the scope of this ontology, or is this a work to be carried out in a more generic conceptual model ?
The current proposed alternative is to use PROV with roles to link e.g. organizations and information objects.
As originally expressed:
and
While these relations are of interest in the knowledge domain, COOS is a core ontology; do we consider these properties to be in the scope of this ontology, or is this a work to be carried out in a more generic conceptual model ?
The current proposed alternative is to use PROV with roles to link e.g. organizations and information objects.