EPIC: Evaluate existing domain-agnostic vocabularies

[StroemPhi]

This task was defined in our WG charter as: "Evaluate existing domain-agnostic vocabularies"

As an epic task, this issue serves primarily as a hub to link to the more specific subtasks associated with this epic. Its comment section should thus be used to discuss only the scope of this epic, e.g. what is needed for this epic from an organizational perspective.

To start (propose) a discussion around a specific subtask of this epic please use this issue template.

Possible TODOs (no issues existing yet)

• [ ] define what domain-agnostic means
• [ ] make an overview which consortium uses which domain-agnostic vocabulary
• [ ] #19
• [ ] define requirements for mapping between used domain-agnostic vocabularies

---

Glossary

• We talk about vocabularies here, we include different kinds taxonomy, ontology, ....

[StroemPhi]

I've added the label MLO to this issue, as I interpret 'domain-agnostic' as meaning "mid-level" in terms of general concepts that are used across many domains which can be defined based on concepts defined in top-level terminologies. So terminologies defining terms for measurements or countries and cities can be considered domain agnostic.

[HendrikBorgelt]

Since we can use ontologies as controlled vocabularies, we have to be careful that we only consider them as such controlled vocabularies and do not take their description logic into account. Mapping tools in the area of vocabularies, therefore, have much more freedom than mapping tools in the area of ontologies. We should therefore discuss how much overlap we accept and to what extent we want to distinguish between ontologies, the controlled vocabulary of an ontology, and other vocabularies, such as skos vocabularies.

• [ ] Discussion up to which semantic expressivity we still want to consider structures as vocabulary.