Legal Bits

[Christopher Gutteridge]

The ontology would be much less intimidating if the "legal" bits were
documented separately (courts, cases, decisions etc.)

(just a passing thought as I try to learn 17 A4 sheets of OWL+N3)

--
Christopher Gutteridge -- http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/people/cjg

Lead Developer, EPrints Project, http://eprints.org/

Web Projects Manager, School of Electronics and Computer Science,
University of Southampton.

[Bruce D'Arcus]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Christopher Gutteridge
<c...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> The ontology would be much less intimidating if the "legal" bits were
> documented separately (courts, cases, decisions etc.)
>
> (just a passing thought as I try to learn 17 A4 sheets of OWL+N3)

How would you propose we do that, though?

Bruce

[Frederick Giasson]

Hi Bruce,

>> The ontology would be much less intimidating if the "legal" bits were
>> documented separately (courts, cases, decisions etc.)
>>
>> (just a passing thought as I try to learn 17 A4 sheets of OWL+N3)
>>
>
> How would you propose we do that, though?
>

Like what we discussed in the past: as an extension module. The
extension could be in another file that we maintain separately. Then the
next question arise: should we create a new namespace for it?

It is the way to go, and these are two totally different considerations.

Thanks,

Fred

[Bruce D'Arcus]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Frederick Giasson <fr...@fgiasson.com> wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
>
>>> The ontology would be much less intimidating if the "legal" bits were
>>> documented separately (courts, cases, decisions etc.)
>>>
>>> (just a passing thought as I try to learn 17 A4 sheets of OWL+N3)
>>>
>>
>> How would you propose we do that, though?
>>
>
> Like what we discussed in the past: as an extension module. The extension
> could be in another file that we maintain separately. Then the next question
> arise: should we create a new namespace for it?

Which implies breakage.

> It is the way to go, and these are two totally different considerations.

Not exactly; for bibliographic applications like Zotero, etc., they're
the same. For libraries and bookstores and such they're different.

Bruce

[Frederick Giasson]

Hi Bruce,

>>>> The ontology would be much less intimidating if the "legal" bits were
>>>> documented separately (courts, cases, decisions etc.)
>>>>
>>>> (just a passing thought as I try to learn 17 A4 sheets of OWL+N3)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> How would you propose we do that, though?
>>>
>>>
>> Like what we discussed in the past: as an extension module. The extension
>> could be in another file that we maintain separately. Then the next question
>> arise: should we create a new namespace for it?
>>
>
> Which implies breakage.
>

Yes and no. Yes it is a difference namespace, but we can specify that
the two ontologies (bibo-core and the "legal" extensions are related in
some ways.

Maybe we are just talking about a logical split in terms of
serialized/instantiation files.

>> It is the way to go, and these are two totally different considerations.
>>
>
> Not exactly; for bibliographic applications like Zotero, etc., they're
> the same. For libraries and bookstores and such they're different.
>

I was talking about the difference between a simple logical split in
terms of files, and the creation of a new namespace

Thanks!

Fred
> Bruce
>
>

[Christopher Gutteridge]

A more simple solution might be to keep it in the namespace, but treat
it as an extension in the documentation. However, if nobody is already
heavily using it, it might be better to rip the band aid off in one go
and split the namespace.

My first and second impressions of bibo was it being too big to get
started with quickly.

--

Christopher Gutteridge -- http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/people/cjg

Lead Developer, EPrints Project, http://eprints.org/

Web Projects Manager, University of Southampton,

[Frederick Giasson]

Hi again,

> A more simple solution might be to keep it in the namespace, but treat
> it as an extension in the documentation. However, if nobody is already
> heavily using it, it might be better to rip the band aid off in one go
> and split the namespace.
>
> My first and second impressions of bibo was it being too big to get
> started with quickly.

Yeah, I agree with this. This is something we already talked about if my
memory is good, and something we should start doing with BIBO (same
namespace, but different documents).

If there is no objections, we could start splitting the documents
(listing classes and properties) in different sections of a page on the
website.

Thanks,

Fred