-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
OntologyDesign sprint: iteration 1 (places) #14
Comments
An important question is which ones of these can be added to the datasets for the demo ASAP. (See also #10) |
The datasets where all these fields come from are already in the
In sum, we have all the data but we can rely mostly on 3, 4, 5, 6. As for the ontology modules, we are constantly in contact with @valecarriero, so our concern in this issue was actually shared. |
Some modelling progress from the OD team curating the musical performance module (@valecarriero, @jonnybluesman, @andreamust). This partial model generalises some key parts of MusicBrainz (where we get most of the data), is still aligned with our competency questions, and addresses Places 5, and 6 (see list above). |
Please note: all object properties in these diagrams will have their inverse. |
[update after 23/09/2021 WP2 meeting] |
|
model for the coordinates (basically, based on https://w3id.org/italia/onto/CLV/) |
As suggested by @vpresutti I'm gonna add to the KG production rules some binary relations for places from the song to the place, see this related issue: We need to simplify query to select important examples for the demo! |
As @enridaga suggested, at the current iteration we are focusing on basic concepts + those related to places. Together with @andreamust and @valecarriero, we have filtered the place-related "fields" (from our list [1]) and tried to contextualise them with the current (and the potential) design of the ontology modules.
In sum, these are the data types related to places, with the corresponding entries in [1]:
Please note that this is more complex from a technical point of view, as MusicBrainz is very granular and provides information at different levels. Indeed, a musical work (the composition) can have N recordings, each of which can be present in M releases. For data collection, we tried to simplify this step, so we can assume a 1:1:1 relationship for the moment.
Anyways, and more importantly, we were wondering if all these data types should be modelled in our ontology modules.
[1] https://liveunibo.sharepoint.com/:x:/r/sites/polifonia/Shared%20Documents/WP6/AI%26Music@Sonar2021/datasets/overview.xlsx?d=w352ea4d8aefe40cbb080d1c291c52998&csf=1&web=1&e=V2BAIm
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: