dc-provenance

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
====== Participants ======
Michael, Kai, Daniel

Mostly discussions about the domain model again, only some notes were written down by Michael afterwards.

====== Minutes ======

  * 10:01 michaelp2	Hi Daniel, thanks for adding the definitions.
  * 10:02 DGarijo	no problem=20
  * 10:02 michaelp2	I made a couple of changes to the domain model presentation based on your questions and Kai's responses.
  * 10:03 michaelp2	Very minor stuff.
  * 10:03 kai_	Ömer sent regrets
  * 10:03 kai_	So we are complete
  * 10:03 michaelp2	But I found it hard to explain in a concise fashion ... I think I underestimated the time I needed there.
  * 10:52 michaelp2	Topic: Cardinality refinement
  * 10:55 michaelp2	Topic: Superclass of Description Set necessary? Domain/range problems in OWL, could be circumvented by property/chain inclusion?
  * 11:04 michaelp2	Re Cardinality refinement: Annotation should be about exactly one description set, not 1..* to keep it inline with DCAM definitions ("descriptions are statements aboout ONE resource")
  * 11:09 michaelp2	... This precludes reuse of annotation to describe several descriptions sets, as this would require a new annotation. ... for each description set instance. ... In other words, reusing an annotation to describe a second description set makes it a new annotation automatically.
  * 11:13 michaelp2	Re: Superclass of description set:
  * 11:14 michaelp2	Kai: It might be necessary to assume a superclass of description set in our model, so that we can impose a range restriction on the "describes" relationship without OWL inferring every described entity being a description set. It might also be an aggregation of descrition sets.
  * 11:16 michaelp2	Michael: But "describes" really is a bundle of relationships. Those could be lifted straight from the source vocabulary like "dct:creator", so we don't get to impose domain/range restrictions at all. We got rid of a dedicated "provenance" relationship when we decided that we didn't want to connect annotation set with description  set.
  * 11:19	michaelp2	Kai: Could we do it another way with OWL, to state something like: Everything in an annotation set is an annotation, everything that is object of an annotation is a description set, ergo everything that is object of a relationship used in an annotation is a description set.
  * 11:20	michaelp2	... used in an annotation set, I meant.
  * 11:25	michaelp2	Michael: I think this would well be possible by using property chain inclusion in OWL 2: If x is value of a statement, and that statement belongs to an annotation set, x is a description set.
  * 11:31	michaelp2	Michael: Or, in RDF terms: If resource x is object of property y, and property y is part of an annotation set, x is a description set. Hmm, on second look, doesn't sound right. I have to go  and recheck. I think only one property can by propagated across another  in a property chain inclusion.