Forwarding Deirdre’s email.
Regards,
Eric
From: Lee, Deirdre
[mailto:Deirdre.Lee@deri.org]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 2:50 AM
To: Eric Chan; icom@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Dragan, Laura
Subject: RDF mapping of the OO model
Hi,
Please find attached an RDF
diagram and description of the OO model, which Eric distributed before the
last meeting. Laura and I created the RDF model, based on RDF modeling best
practices.
·
All the OO classes
were mapped to RDF concepts
·
The OO property getParents
was mapped to multiple RDF properties (hasParent, hasParentOfRole,
hasParentOfGroup, hasParentOfActor, hasParentOfWorkspace), as each of the
RDF properties have different domain and ranges and cannot be defined using a
single property.
·
NRL
(http://www.semanticdesktop.org/ontologies/nrl/) is used to describe some of
the restrictions in the model, e.g nrl:FunctionalProperty is used to
model that a concept may only have one instance of a particular property. The nrl:FunctionalProperty
is used to restrict an Entity may only have been createdBy one Actor.
·
NRL addresses
several limitations of current Semantic Web languages, especially with respect
to modularization and customization. Therefore we propose that NRL is used as
opposed to OWL (which addresses similar needs) because:
o
OWL does not support
named graphs (there is an extension to it though)
o
Inferencing in OWL
is complex and may be unnecessary for our needs, as was the case in Nepomuk
o OWL
has an open world assumption, whereas with the use of NRL we can adopt a closed
world assumption
·
The OO properties
that return a set are mapped to RDF properties without restrictions, e.g. elements:Set<Artifact>
is mapped to hasArtifactElement . However these RDF properties could be
restricted to a certain number using the nrl:cardinality constraints.
·
The interfaces that
are defined in the OO model are not able to be expressed using RDF, as you
cannot define a concept in RDF that cannot be instantiated.
On a more general note,
regarding the choosing of the core concepts, please see the Generic
Collaboration Model attached. This model was used as the core collaboration
model in the Ecospace project and we believe is very relevant to the ICOM
model. The concepts included in this model are as follows:
·
User: who collaborates
·
Content: what collaboration is about
·
Process: how and when collaboration takes place
·
Collaborative
Space: where the aggregation of Content
and Process is unfold, virtual or real space
·
Context: all the external factors that affect collaboration e.g.
cultural, background, history, know-how, etc.
·
Personal
Collaborative Space: the intersection of
a User’s work sphere with a collaborative space
Looking forward to receiving
your feedback in the meeting.
Deirdre & Laura
From: Eric Chan [mailto:eric-s.chan@oracle.com]
Sent: 02 September 2009 00:52
To: icom@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [icom] Agenda for ICOM TC Meeting on September 2, 9:00 - 10:00
AM PDT
Agenda
1. Roll Call
2. Approve draft minutes from August 19 TC Meeting
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/icom/email/archives/200909/msg00000.html
3. Review the minimal model of community, workspace, folder,
artifact, and other high-level concepts (given below) for representation in RDF
(model source file attached)
4. AOB
Please sign on to ICOM TC chat room
http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/ICOM-TC
Best regards,
Eric
No virus
found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.75/2340 - Release Date: 09/01/09
20:03:00
