Lady’s Gitweb - Vocab/blob - data/named_individuals/_SWAP-PIM_

   1 <?xml version="1.0"?>
   2 <!--
   3 SPDX-FileCopyrightText: 2024 Lady <https://www.ladys.computer/about/#lady>
   4 SPDX-License-Identifier: CC0-1.0
   5 -->
   6 <!DOCTYPE NamedIndividual SYSTEM "../../DTD">
   7 <NamedIndividual name="https://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/">
   8         <label xml:lang="en">Swap Pim</label>
   9         <comment xml:lang="en">
  10                 <p>
  11                         Swap (the <ref target="https://github.com/linkeddata/swap">Semantic Web Application Platform</ref>) was a very early set of tools for working with linked data, created by timbl.
  12                         It came packaged with a number of early, experimental, and frankly demo vocabularies, provided as Notation·3 files in the <code>pim/</code> directory (your guess is as good as mine).
  13                 </p>
  14                 <p>
  15                         For the most part, the problems that these vocabularies were trying to solve have now been better solved else·where.
  16                         Never·the·less, some terms are still useful, or at least generally compatible with those from later vocabularies.
  17                         Those terms are defined here.
  18                 </p>
  19                 <p>
  20                         The vocabularies encompassed by Swap Pim include :⁠—
  21                 </p>
  22                 <list>
  23                         <item>
  24                                 <p>
  25                                         <strong>Contact:</strong>
  26                                         This vocabulary is, by far, the most widely‐used, and most likely to be useful, vocabulary in this set:
  27                                         <ptr target="(FOAF)"/> specifically calls out <ptr target="contact:nearestAirport"/> as an alternative to <ptr target="foaf:based_near"/>.
  28                                         Most of its terms are included in this ontology, but a few are not :⁠—
  29                                 </p>
  30                                 <list>
  31                                         <item>
  32                                                 <p>
  33                                                         <resource name="contact:title"/> and <resource name="contact:departmentName"/> should be properties of roles, not people; as it stands, they become unusable if a person is ever involved in more than one organization at the same time.
  34                                                 </p>
  35                                         </item>
  36                                         <item>
  37                                                 <p>
  38                                                         <resource name="contact:emailAddress"/>, <resource name="contact:mailboxURI"/>, and <resource name="contact:homePageAddress"/> are explicitly discouraged in their original definitions.
  39                                                 </p>
  40                                         </item>
  41                                         <item>
  42                                                 <p>
  43                                                         <resource name="contact:Male"/> and <resource name="contact:Female"/>, as classes, are undocumented and likely misguided.
  44                                                 </p>
  45                                         </item>
  46                                 </list>
  47                         </item>
  48                         <item>
  49                                 <p>
  50                                         <strong>Doc:</strong>
  51                                         This vocabulary revolves around properties for describing <ref target="doc:Work">Works</ref>, which are defined essentially as pieces of intellectual property.
  52                                         This is a problematic definition which limits the utility of the rest of the vocabulary.
  53                                         This ontology defines only the problematic Work class itself, as well as the <ref target="doc:version">version</ref> property (but only one of the two very different definitions provided), which is not Work‐specific.
  54                                 </p>
  55                         </item>
  56                         <item>
  57                                 <p>
  58                                         <strong>I·Calendar:</strong>
  59                                         This is a small and experimental attempt at encoding calendaring information into R·D·F.
  60                                         W·3·C later created <ref target="https://www.w3.org/TR/rdfcal/">R·D·F Calendar</ref>, which is a much more fully‐fleshed‐out solution and should be used instead.
  61                                         Both are considered out‐of‐scope for this ontology.
  62                                 </p>
  63                         </item>
  64                         <item>
  65                                 <p>
  66                                         <strong>Mortgage:</strong>
  67                                         This is a vocabulary aimed at representing the information in a “e·g Bank of America online mortgage statement” in R·D·F.
  68                                         It is probably not sufficient to the task and regardless is out‐of‐scope for this ontology, which does not care about finances.
  69                                 </p>
  70                         </item>
  71                         <item>
  72                                 <p>
  73                                         <strong>Qif:</strong>
  74                                         This is a vocabulary targeted at representing information for personal finances.
  75                                         It is very unclear why some·one would ever want to make their personal finances a part of the Semantic Web, so this vocabulary has been deemed out‐of‐scope for this ontology.
  76                                 </p>
  77                         </item>
  78                         <item>
  79                                 <p>
  80                                         <strong>Track:</strong>
  81                                         This is a very simple vocabulary for issue tracking.
  82                                         It suffers from a number of flaws :⁠—
  83                                 </p>
  84                                 <list>
  85                                         <item>
  86                                                 <p>
  87                                                         The properties for title and summary have their domain restricted to issues, which is needlessly restrictive.
  88                                                 </p>
  89                                         </item>
  90                                         <item>
  91                                                 <p>
  92                                                         <code>track:documentConcerned</code> is a bad name; issues may be filed against things which are not conventionally thought of as “documents”.
  93                                                         The actual range of this property is <ptr target="doc:Work"/>.
  94                                                 </p>
  95                                         </item>
  96                                         <item>
  97                                                 <p>
  98                                                         Issue lifecycle is determined via a number of properties which point at Works that denote the change.
  99                                                         Correct interpretation requires that these Works be given sequential publication dates (or be sequenced thru some other mechanism).
 100                                                         A better model would be to have a single property which associates the issue with a dated <ref target="anno:SpecificResource">Specific Resource</ref>, whose <ref target="anno:purpose">purpose</ref> provides the effect of the change.
 101                                                         Or, to link issues to dated events, rather than of Works.
 102                                                 </p>
 103                                         </item>
 104                                 </list>
 105                                 <p>
 106                                         Considering basically every aspect of this vocabulary has flaws, there¦s really no good argument for including it.
 107                                         <ptr target="(EVO-ONT)"/> provides a much better model for issue tracking, building on W·3·C¦s.
 108                                 </p>
 109                         </item>
 110                         <item>
 111                                 <p>
 112                                         <strong>Travel Terms:</strong>
 113                                         This vocabulary defines terms for modelling air travel via commercial airlines.
 114                                         There¦s not anything obviously wrong with it, but it¦s out‐of‐scope for this ontology.
 115                                 </p>
 116                         </item>
 117                         <item>
 118                                 <p>
 119                                         <strong>U·S·P·S:</strong>
 120                                         This vocabulary aims to define terms for representing in R·D·F the specific fields used by the United States Postal Service, with the goal of modelling the specific mailing locations used by specific pieces of physical mail.
 121                                         This ontology does not attempt to model specific pieces of physical mail, so this vocabulary is out of scope.
 122                                         For describing the locations and addresses of people, to the extent that is needed, better vocabularies exist.
 123                                 </p>
 124                         </item>
 125                 </list>
 126                 <p>
 127                         In cases where a property in Swap Pim is defined as equivalent to another property in a different name·space, it is strongly recommended that you use the other property instead.
 128                 </p>
 129         </comment>
 130         <type>
 131                 <resource name="dcterms:BibliographicResource"/>
 132         </type>
 133 </NamedIndividual>