What ontologies should we consider using?

[mconlon17]

As the world moves forward with semantics, there will be outstanding ontologies that we should consider using. In some cases this means using the ontology rather than defining our own. In other cases, it may mean ripping out a bit of our ontology and substituting axioms better developed elsewhere.

Some examples:

• W3C Time ontology (instead of vivo:dateTime things) https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/REC-owl-time-20171019/
• W3C PROV ontology (rather than developing our own provenance ontology, whatever its flaws, PROV is often considered a given)
• Contribution Role Ontology (assuming it is a superset of CRediT, seems important to say we can make CRediT assertions)
• IAO -- should we be using more of IAO and less of other document-oriented ontologies, or more or less BIBO or more or less SPAR

[vioil]

let's look into DBpedia: http://www.essepuntato.it/lode/owlapi/https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dbpedia/ontology-tracker/master/ontology/dbpedia_ontology.ttl

[vioil]

I am adding my email to the VIVO community about DCAT [from 12/14/17] so we can capture the need for using the vocabulary:

The Dataset Exchange Working Group (DXWG) [1] is pleased to announce the
publication of the First Public Working Draft of the Dataset Exchange
Use Cases and Requirements.[2]

The working group will produce a second version of the Data Catalog
(DCAT) Vocabulary [3], guidance for the creation of application
profiles, and content negotiation based on those profiles. The Use Cases
and Requirements cover all three deliverables...

---

[1] https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Main_Page
[2] https://www.w3.org/TR/dcat-ucr/
[3] https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/