Thanks, Karen, that's the direction I was going to go, but just wasn't sure.
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 2:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Ontology Question
Quoting "Lepczyk, Timothy" <[log in to unmask]>:
> Hi All,
> I'm putting together an ontology for a collection either using
> CIDOC-CRM, or a mix of CIDOC-CRM and FOAF. I don't need the whole
> CIDOC-CRM ontology. Is it okay to just use the classes I need or
> should I include the super classes which they belong to?
I'll give you my understanding of this area, but I can't guarantee it is correct.
Presumably if you are re-using properties or classes that have been "officially" defined elsewhere (meaning defined in RDF/OWL, preferably by the owners of the property), then your use does not change the official definition. You may add it to your ontology, but it is the "home" ontology for that property (defined by the URI) that determines its meaning and relationships.
Assuming this is true, then you do not need to "include" related
super- or sub-classes because the property in your ontology is just a another use of that property. The relationship to other classes carries along with it.
You *can* add relationships, such as making a CIDOC-CRM property a super or sub class of a property that you define. The CIDOC-CRM folks and others can choose to use or ignore anything you do.
> Thanks for the help,
> - - - - - - - - -
> Timothy A. Lepczyk
> Digital Repository-Metadata Librarian
> John M. Olin Library
> Washington University
> Phone: 314.935.8934
> Website: http://www.digital.wustl.edu/
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net