Ontology Design - Revision history

Admin: /* Relationships */

2017-08-21T03:01:59Z

‎Relationships

Admin at 02:57, 21 August 2017

2017-08-21T02:57:34Z

Show changes

Admin: /* Node Labels */

2017-08-21T02:43:14Z

‎Node Labels

Admin: /* Node Properties */

2017-08-21T02:42:39Z

‎Node Properties

Admin: /* Node Properties */

2017-08-21T02:41:56Z

‎Node Properties

Admin: /* Node Labels */

2017-08-21T02:35:59Z

‎Node Labels

Show changes

Admin: /* Node Labels */

2017-08-19T09:15:04Z

‎Node Labels

Admin: /* Node Labels */

2017-08-19T09:14:09Z

‎Node Labels

Admin: /* Design Strategy */

2017-08-19T09:10:42Z

‎Design Strategy

Admin at 08:11, 17 August 2017

2017-08-17T08:11:31Z

@@ Line 464: / Line 464: @@
 | Media || isRefOf_Media
 |-
-| rowspan="12"|rel || Colleague || Colleague
+| rowspan="13"|rel || Colleague || Colleague
 |-
 | Daughter || isDaughterOf
@@ Line 546: / Line 546: @@
 However, it was found that the potential relationships and inverses for action, start, end, and transformation relationships were more complicated than basic standard-inverse relationships. This is because the domain and range of the relationship can depend on the nature of the relationship. Therefore, there are four columns - active, passive, date, and place. Passive, date, and place can all be inverses of active. However, date and place can also be the inverse of passive as well. This depends on whether the relationship is centered around a human action, or a passive effect on a person or heritage object in which the actor of that effect is insignificant. For example, if a building is renovated, it is usually the date of renovation which is important, and who renovated it is secondary. In this case, the relationship would be between the heritage and the date via the “wasRenovated” relationship, and who renovated it would be stored as a property. However, there are also cases in which who did the action is more important than when it was done - for example, who created a piece of art. In this case, the relationship would be between the creator and creation, with the date saved as a property. This allows for flexibility in deciding which should be the target (range) of a particular relationship, but also may prove to be problematic as the range type is then selected based on the subjective judgment of the relationship creator. However, regardless, all the important information about the relationship - actor, place, date, reason, etc., can be stored as a property.
-''Table''
+'''Table 23 Complex start-trans-end-act relationships'''<ref>Relationships highlighted in green can be used with an actor (person, group, or institution) as the domain, blue can have an intangible or tangible object as its domain, and yellow can be either actor or intangible/tangible object as the domain.</ref>
 ==Footnotes==

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:43, 21 August 2017
Line 108:		Line 108:

	[http://dh.aks.ac.kr/~lyndsey/MT_ontology.htm Interactive version of the ontology design graph]		[http://dh.aks.ac.kr/~lyndsey/MT_ontology.htm Interactive version of the ontology design graph]
		+
		+	Table 18 '''Node labels'''

	{\|class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center"		{\|class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center"

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:42, 21 August 2017
Line 175:		Line 175:

	As explained in the section on design strategy, node properties were minimized in favor of more discrete nodes which are connected to via relationships whenever possible to minimize redundant translations and other data input. Therefore, the node properties were limited to the following as shown in the table below.		As explained in the section on design strategy, node properties were minimized in favor of more discrete nodes which are connected to via relationships whenever possible to minimize redundant translations and other data input. Therefore, the node properties were limited to the following as shown in the table below.
		+
		+	Table 19 '''Node properties'''

	{\|class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center"		{\|class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center"

@@ Line 177: / Line 177: @@
 {|class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center"
-! style="width:20%;" | Property Name || style="width:15%;" | Domain || style="width:15%;" | Data Type || style="width:50%;" | Definition
+! style="width:30%;" | Domain Node Labels || style="width:15%;" | Property  || style="width:15%;" | Data Type || style="width:40%;" | Description
 |-
-| GIS || address || gis || style="text-align: left;" | latitude and longitude coordinates
+| address || GIS_lat || gis || latitude and longitude coordinates
 |-
-| ID || ALL || string || style="text-align: left;" | id
+| address || GIS_lon || gis || latitude and longitude coordinates
 |-
-| title_kr || ALL || string || style="text-align: left;" | main name in Korean
+| ALL || ID || string || id
 |-
-| title_en || ALL || string || style="text-align: left;" | main name in English (translation)
+| ALL (except measurement, date) || kr || string || main node name in Korean
 |-
-| title_ch || ALL || string || style="text-align: left;" | main name in Chinese (hanmun)
+| ALL (except measurement, date) || en || string || main node name in English (translation)
 |-
-| title_rr || ALL || string || style="text-align: left;" | main name in Revised Romanization
+| ALL (except measurement, date, year/month, address) || ch || string || main node name in Chinese (hanmun)
 |-
-| title_mr || ALL || string || style="text-align: left;" | main name in McCune-Reischauer
+| ALL (except measurement, date, year/month, address) || rr || string || main node name in Revised Romanization
 |-
-| title_kr_alt || ALL || string || style="text-align: left;" | alternative name in Korean
+| ALL (except measurement, date, year/month, address) || mr || string || main node name in McCune-Reischauer
 |-
-| title_en_alt || ALL || string || style="text-align: left;" | alternative name in English
+| ALL (except value, year/month) || URI || string || link to a webpage describing the node
 |-
-| def_kr || ALL (except value) || string || style="text-align: left;" | definition, summary, explanation in Korean
+| ALL (except measurement, date, year/month, address) || def_kr || string || definition, summary, explanation in Korean
 |-
-| def_en || ALL (except value) || string || style="text-align: left;" | definition, summary, explanation in English
+| ALL (except measurement, date, year/month, address) || def_en || string || definition, summary, explanation in English
 |-
-| URI || ALL (except value) || string || style="text-align: left;" | link to a webpage describing the node
+| linguistic object || def_ch || string || the original Chinese character text of a linguistic object
 |-
-| date_sol || date || date || style="text-align: left;" | date in the solar calendar
+| date || date_sol || date || date in the solar calendar
 |-
-| date_lun || date || date or string (?) || style="text-align: left;" | date in the lunar calendar
+| date || date_lun || date || date in the lunar calendar
 |-
-| date_kr || date || string || style="text-align: left;" | date based on Korean reign years
+| length || cm || number || centimeter
 |-
-| date_ch || date || string || style="text-align: left;" | date based on Chinese date naming
+| length || in || number || inch
 |-
-| CHnumber || tangible objects || number || style="text-align: left;" | cultural heritage designation number
+| weight || kg || number || kilograms
 |}
 Some limitations of these node properties are that there can be only one main title for each language. For example, the primary name that will show when the node is displayed in Korean or English will need to be decided. For example, “pagoda body” is referred to by many names in Korean, while events such as “Imjinwaeran” are translated variously in English as the 'Japanese Invasions of Korea,' the 'Imjin War,' etc. Which term appears as the primary title of the node in each language should be determined based on research of 1) how it has been most commonly referred to or translated as, and 2) what is easiest for most audiences to understand. However, all equivalent terms or translations can be saved as appellation nodes, which allows for users to search for and find the nodes via these alternate names.

@@ Line 84: / Line 84: @@
 The ontology proposed here has six main labels: tangible object, intangible object, person, concept, digital resource and value. These labels were determined based on the ideas of tangibility and whether or not it can have more than one existence. For example, tangible object and person are tangible, digital resource is digital, and intangible object, concept, and value are intangible. Tangible object, person, intangible object, and value can only have once instance, while concept and digital resource can have multiple instances. Value and concept were differentiated because the definition of value is permanent, while concepts can change meaning over time. Person was differentiated from tangible object, partially on the basis of being alive (although in this case, plants and animals would also need to be differentiated from tangible objects), but mostly out of usefulness for the user.
+Table 17 '''Rationale for node label design'''
 {|class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center"

@@ Line 87: / Line 87: @@
 {|class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center"
-! style="width:150px;" | Class || style="width:150px;" | Existances || style="width:150px;" | Start/End || style="width:150px;" | Manifestation || style="width:150px;" | Agency
+! style="width:25%;" | Label || style="width:25%;" | Tangibiligy || style="width:25%;" | Instances || style="width:25%;" | Notes
 |-
-| Tangible Object || Singular || Yes || Physical || No
+| Tangible Object ||Tangible|| 1 ||
 |-
-| Intangible Object || Singular || No || Not Physical || No
+| Intangible Object || Intangible || 1 ||
 |-
-| Person || Singular || Yes || Physical || Yes
+| Person || Tangible || 1 || Living/Useful to differentiate
 |-
-| Concept || Multiple || No || Not Physical || No
+| Concept || Intangible || 1+ || Changing definition
 |-
-| Value || Singular || No || Not Physical || No
+| Value || Intangible || 1+ ||Permanent definition
 |-
-| Digital Resource || Multiple || No || Digital || No
+| Digital Resource || Digital || 1+ ||
 |}

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 As mentioned in the previous section, the utilization of a database – a graph database, in particular – in and of itself has the potential to address many limitations of current heritage interpretation practices in regard to the five ideals of heritage interpretation. However, this ontology attempts to take these ideals into particular consideration, while also improving on existing shortcomings in Korean cultural heritage interpretative resources, in the following ways as demonstrated in the following table.
-''Table''
+Table 16 '''Summary of the ontology's features'''
 These various features were achieved by taking the following approaches to the ontology design:

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 ==Ontology Scope==
-This ontology was developed based on a review of the content of the interpretive texts of on-site cultural heritages were translated by the Academy of Korean Studies Korean Cultural Heritage English Interpretive Text Compilation Research Team between fall 2015 and spring 2017 (as discussed in section III.4). The various potential contextual elements, as well as their relationships to the heritage and one another, were extracted from the texts. These were then reviewed and organized, and this has been presented as the following ontology. These texts cover over 130 heritages of 27 different types,  thus providing a diverse range of cultural heritage information which reflects the diversity of on-site cultural heritages and their contexts at large.
+This ontology was developed based on a review of the content of the interpretive texts of on-site cultural heritages were translated by the Academy of Korean Studies Korean Cultural Heritage English Interpretive Text Compilation Research Team between fall 2015 and spring 2017 (as discussed in section III.4). The various potential contextual elements, as well as their relationships to the heritage and one another, were extracted from the texts. These were then reviewed and organized, and this has been presented as the following ontology. These texts cover over 130 heritages of 27 different types<ref>Archeological sites, bird habitats, bridges, Buddhist halls, pagodas, paintings and statues, Confucian academies and local schools, forests, fortresses, government offices, nature reserves, palaces, pavilions (private, governmental, and commemorative), placenta chambers, portraits, royal edicts, shrines, steles, tombs, traditional Korean houses, trees, watchtowers, and wells </ref>,  thus providing a diverse range of cultural heritage information which reflects the diversity of on-site cultural heritages and their contexts at large.
 ==Design Strategy==
@@ Line 191: / Line 191: @@
 ''Table''
 [[Category:Masters Thesis]]