[Nepomuk] Some (a lot of) ideas for/issues with the Nepomuk ontologies

[Sebastian Trüg]

Hi guys,

before creating tons of tickets for SDO I would like to discuss some of
the issues I see with the ontologies. So here goes. Please comment.

* Would it make sense to create "nco:hasContactMedium
  rdfs:subPropertyOf nie:hasLogicalPart" (in that case
  nco:ContactMedium would have to be made a nie:InformationElement.).
  The alternative is nao:hasSubResource. But how are the two properties
  related?

* Should nie:hasPart and nie:hasLogicalPart be subproperties of
  nao:hasSubResource?

* Should we not use nfo:Website as range for a property like
  nco:websiteUrl

* nie:created should NOT be a sub property of nao:created. The latter
  refers to the RDF resource while the former refers to the DataObject

* Should we deprecate ncal:comment in favor of nie:comment?

* Why is ncal:cutype not expressed via actual rdf types?

* in what relation does ncal:attachmentUrl stand to nie:url? Is it
  required at all?

* ncal:timestamp seems redundant when we have nie:contentCreated.
  Should we make it a subproperty and deprecate it?

* Maybe we even need fixed cardinality of 1 for the ncal:NCalDateTime
  properties

* nco:imStatus has a string range. That is just awful. Especially since
  there is also nco:imStatusMessage which can be used to store an
  arbitrary message. nco:imStatus should have a resource range with a
  dedicated nco:ImStatus type and predefined instances.

* nao:creator like the other nao properties should refer to the creator
  of the resource itself (in the database) as compared to the creator
  of the content (of a nie:informationElement or nie:DataObject). This
  includes files. Thus, properties like nco:creator should NOT be
  sub-properties of nao:creator.

* We need a property to state who created the content of a
  nie:InformationElement. We have nco:creator but it refers to
  DataObjects.

* nfo:Website: I think it should be a nie:DataObject. The comment
  states that it can be interpreted as a HTMLDocument and it does not
  make any sense to interpret a IE as IE.

That is all. Please comment at least on a few of them.

Cheers,
Sebastian