...
1) The rules in Richard Cyganiak’s document were not really evaluated but the OWL output from the transformation of XMI.
a) Issue: Review uncomplete. The rules might need just additions.
2) General goals:
a) RDF representation of DDI (meta)data should be as simple and maximally useful for query answering and linked data.
b) Should have the kind of query ability or inference that helps you answer useful questions.
3) Currently some not valid OWL is generated. The reason might be issues in the model with ComplexDataTypes. The transforming program doesn’t ignore these issues.
a) Action: fix the issues in the model. Make transforming program more robust in order to ignore weak model status (is this really possible?)
4) Untyped items. Background can be that orphan items exist in the model from DDI 3.2 import.
a) Action: Review untyped items.
5) Abstract classes are treated as regular classes.
a) Action: This should be fixed in the transformation from PIM to PSM by flattening the class hierarchy.
6) Additional rules for transformation are necessary (my understanding for using other vocabularies). A generic transformation (DDI flavor) would not take advantage of the beauty of RDF.
a) Issue: mapping to other standards or using other standards
7) Additionally, the XMI should be transformed into a RDF constraint language for validation purposes of instances (ShEx and/or SHACL).
a) Action: Collection of important validation rules (in English).
8) A tighter reusable core should be achieved. An ontology-based model can help here.
a) Action: Review of the model regarding a reusable core; i.e. there might be duplication of similar classes. Take advantage of abstract classes.
b) Issue: Balance between clever model (in terms of modeling) and implementable model.
9) Separation of administrative metadata and metadata about the entities.
a) Action: Review if distinction is clear enough in the model.
10) Needs further exploration with a Semantic Web expert:
a) Graphs: use a graph to store the triples about an individual; explicitly relate the individual to the graph. Annotate the graph with record metadata.
b) Record vs individual knowledge. Assign a versioned identifier for the record and a version-independent identifier for the individual. Couple the right metadata to either the record or individual.
c) Review the code examples in the minutes, partly related to the two topics above.
d) Review ontology examples like SIO and HP which Michel Dumontier co-authored.
Discussion in the group
Achim, Arofan, Jon, Marcel, Wendy | 26 November 2015
...