[Nepomuk] First time Hello / Conquirere research tool / BibTeX ontology

Mon Sep 19 07:50:11 UTC 2011

Hi Joerg,

looks much better already. Some further comments nonetheless:

* BibResource could be something more generic to denote the base class
for anything that can be published on paper without making reference to
bibtex. Maybe PrintMediaPublication or something like that which does
not include the term "print".

* nbib:abstract could be moved to NIE maybe. Basically anything could
have an abstract, right?

* publicationDate should also be moved to NIE with a domain of
nie:InformationElement. After all other things than print media can be
published.

* nbib:Journal as a sub-class to nco:Contact does not seem right to me
after all. IMHO there should be an instance for each single issue of one
journal. Otherwise it is hard to fit them into the rest of the
publications (one issue is one publication). I would rather imagine a
Journal as a sub-class to Collection which can then contain several
Articles (using nie:hasLogicalPart or a sub-property I suppose).
Maybe call it Journal and JournalIssue where the latter is a sub-class
to Collection.

* what exactly is Incollection?

* nbib:Misc - IMHO just using the base type would be sufficient instead.

* Is there some relationship between a series and a Journal which
justifies a common base class?

* nbib:bibresourceType: can be removed as you would simply use rdf:type.

* nbib:citeKey: what is this required for? Only for mapping back to
plain bibtex?

* nbib:crossref: I think I get this now. it is a citation in the
resource to another resource, right?

* nbib:hasChapter: a property cannot be a logical part of something. The
property could be a sub-property of nie:hasLogicalPart though. But then
I am certain there can be more than one chapter. :P

* The organization: pimo:Role is not what I meant actually. I meant the
very confusing concept of nco roles. Let me try to fit that together:

We would have one nco:OrganizationContact for the organization. This
would be related via nco:org from an nco:Affiliation which in turn would
be the nco:affiliation of the publisher nco:[Person]Contact.

Yes, I think that is it. To verify please check [1].

Very minor nitpicking: please use CamelCase for all entity names.
Example: nbib:BachelorThesis.

As for the ticket: yes, please create a ticket already. You can use
"new-ontology" as the component. The extensions to nco and nie I
mentioned should be created as separate tickets.
We can continue the discussion there and hope that more will take part.

Cheers,
Sebastian

[1] http://oscaf.sourceforge.net/nco.html#nco:sec-description

On 09/18/2011 09:38 PM, Jörg Ehrichs wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
> thanks for the detailed comments.
> 
> What follows is a detailed answer and some more questions as well ;)
> 
> Am Sunday, 18. September 2011, 09:31:49 schrieb Sebastian Trüg:
>> The ontology is a very good start already. I of coursde have a lot of
>> comments (I always do). And after having looked at it I feel it is best
>> to start with a general comment:
>> When designing an ontology you should not try to create a 1-to-1 mapping
>> but instead try to design the ontology the way things actually are. Wow,
>> there is a weird sentence nobody can understand. :P
>> What I mean is that instead of storing the journal as a string, you
>> store it as a resource which has a name and can even have an address and
>> so on.
> 
> Lot of comments are always good :) I took a second look at the ontology and 
> tried to adapt to your comments and tried to change the 1-to-1 mapping to 
> something more "general".
> 
> Lets see if it reflects a  proper semantic approach a bit better now.
> 
> A quick uml overview how the results look like can be found at [1] and the new 
> nbib.trig like before at [2].
> 
>> Anyway, maybe it gets clearer with the detailed comments:
>>
>> nbib:Website:
>> IMHO it would make sense to somehow map this to other websites stored in
>> the system - simply to be able to search and list them the same way.
>> Actually this is a really problematic topic which we have not solved
>> entirely thus far. We had nfo:Website and now have nfo:WebDataObject.
>> But the semantics are not entirely clear yet, at least not to me. Maybe
>> a first step would be to make it a sub-class to nfo:Website.
> 
> I've change the name to nbib:Electronics (thats how KBibTeX names it). This 
> also means, it is not really a sub-class of nfi:Website, for the url part of it 
> it is true though.
> 
>> nbib:AccessDate:
>> this is a property. Thus, by convention it should start with a
>> lower-case letter. Also it is not a sub-property of plainTextContent.
>> Maybe using nuao:lastUsage would be sufficient here?
> 
> As for references of websites it is necessary to specify the date of the 
> access used for the research. I've changed it to nuao:lastUsage as it seems 
> this is the same.
> 
>> nbib:Annotate:
>> I do not understand this one? Can you give an example.
> 
> Thats a weird one. I've added it because KBibtex supports it. In general it 
> seems to be just another form of a simple note field.
> 
>> nbib:Chapter:
>> Here we run into a problem. Conceptually there should be the book which
>> has an author and a publisher and so on. And then there should be the
>> excerpt from the book which is used as the citation. Or a reference into
>> the book (but as you read my email regarding excerpts you know that I am
>> in favor of them). Thus, I would maybe model a chapter as a
>> nie:InformationElement which is nie:isLogicalPartOf the book. Then a
>> reference is to the chapter and not to the book. And in fact the
>> reference could just be a relation to the chapter.
> 
> This sounds logical. I've change it this way around now.
> 
>> nbib:Crossref:
>> lower case again. How about using nao:prefLabel?
> The crossref is used to "link" to another reference entry. I changed it now 
> that every BibResource can have several Crossrefs in the range of the 
> BibReference.
> 
>> nbib:Editor:
>> lower case again. And IMHO this should be in nco instead seeing that
>> both nco:creator and nco:publisher exist.
> 
> should the nco:Editor be added to the nco ontology or like I did currently as 
> nie:Editor in the nbib ontology?
> 
>> nbib:Institution:
>> lower case again. This is a tricky one. IMHO this should be encoded in
>> the nco:publisher property. I suppose this means that an individual
>> person did the publishing but while working for or with the institution?
>> If that is the case we should maybe look into nco roles for this one.
> Yes thats what it mean. 
> So I should add an nbib:Institution as pimo:Role to the publisher?
> 
>> nbib:Number:
>> belongs to the journal/magazie instead of the reference I think. The
>> question is: would it make sense to model single journals as resources
>> or just the series with journal numbers?
> I think one resource nco:Contact per Journal and each article has a 
> nbib:hasJournal with volume/number encoded in the article
> 
>> nbib:Pages:
>> lower case again. IMHO this should be modeled as an excerpt again.
> here istruggle a bit. Currently I changed it to have the pages assigned to the 
> nbib:BibReference. I'm not sure how each page would be created as excerpt of a 
> book for the reference in detail (or if this makes sense at all)
> 
>> Also how about creating a ticket at http:://oscaf.sf.net for the new
>> ontology. After all it makes perfect sense to be able to describe books
>> and stuff.
> 
> Should I create a ticket even with an unfished ontology and see if I get some 
> responses there or firstly work out the main kinks?
> 
> 
> Regards
> Joerg
> 
> [1] 
> https://projects.kde.org/projects/playground/edu/conquirere/repository/revisions/master/changes/nbib/design_overview.jpeg
> 
> [2] 
> https://projects.kde.org/projects/playground/edu/conquirere/repository/revisions/master/changes/nbib/nbib.trig
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Nepomuk mailing list
> Nepomuk at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk
> 