Re: [foaf-dev] Previous relations and predicate weightings

Hi Bob,

Many thanks for your reply. In short, the reason for the rely in
responding was that I attended, yesterday, "Understanding Provenance
and Linked Open Data" [1] in Edinburgh.

I pointed out the Cognitive Characteristics Ontology to the group,
which included to team working on the Open Provenance Model [2], which
I think encapsulates 10 existing Ontologies that provide partial
provenance, which includes Dublin Core. Edoara Pignotti, at Aberdeen,
immediately saw a purpose for CCO in one of his project, PolicyGrid
[3].

The questions surrounding the seminar involved a discussion about
where provenance should sit in the Semantic Web. Should it be
standardized within the RDF framework? Is this what referencing
NamedGraphs was for? Should it be up to the Ontologies (such as OPM)
to define annotations for provenance?

Here's a question relating to CCO. In the example the web [4],
regarding the BBC radio sevices, weighted cco:interest is used. Could
this be applied to to any cco predicate? I realize that cco:interest
is mapped to foaf:topic_interest, but was wondering if similar maps
existed which would allow one to specify a weighting for the
foaf:knows (or equivalent) property, which I think is such a vague
term (even in the foaf defintion of "knows"), that such weightings are
entirely necessary. I realize that cco is somewhat influenced by the
Weighted Interest Ontology, but would like to know if the Domain and
Range of this predicate could be transfomed to be something far more
general like foaf:Agent or owl:Thing?


Thanks,


--
Rob Stewart



[1] - http://www.nesc.ac.uk/esi/events/1194/
[2] - http://openprovenance.org/model/opmo
[3] - http://www.policygrid.org/
[4] - http://smiy.sourceforge.net/cco/spec/cognitivecharacteristics.html#sec-preferences-example