Mappings from DPV to other vocabularies

[coolharsh55]

This issue is intended to create a list identifying the vocabularies whose mappings should be provided by the DPVCG.

Given that DPV takes a singularly domain-specific approach to defining terms (i.e. it does not consider semantics from other vocabularies), its use alongside or with other vocabularies is undefined. For example, dpv:hasName is semantically similar to foaf:name or rdfs:label. When an use-case or adopter requires use of other vocabularies, it is desirable to have an alignment between DPV and other vocabularies so as to have a data model/graph utilising both.

The proposal is to provide such mappings in a directory e.g. /mappings/dpv-foaf containing an RDF file representing the mapping which is expressed using SKOS (i.e. exact, close, related) and a HTML document explaining the rationale and implications.

Below are vocabularies proposed for producing mappings (section below is edited to keep the list updated)

1. RDFS (labels, comments) and SKOS (labels, notes) - note: DPV prefers use of SKOS annotations
2. foaf - annotations for agents / entities
3. vCard - annotations for agents / entities
4. DCMI Metadata Terms - relations for commonly utilised information e.g. timestamps, publication provenance, identifiers
5. ODRL - legal/deontic terms e.g. parties (entities in DPV) and rules regarding permissions - aligned with DPV's taxonomy e.g. personal data, purpose, legal basis
6. SEMIC - EU SEMIC vocabularies such as DCAT-AP, Core, ADMS used for open data
7. PROV - activities, aretefacts, agents/entities, and expressing plans/provenance
8. gist - upper ontology for business processes and concepts

[bertvannuffelen]

Can you also include the core vocabularies for SEMIC?

E.g. dpv:LegalEntity has a different definition than https://semiceu.github.io/Core-Business-Vocabulary/releases/2.00/#Legal%20Entity.

[bertvannuffelen]

Is there any relationship with DCAT?

[coolharsh55]

Hi. For SEMIC, of course - it would be nice to do that. In principle, we're open to supporting any mapping. The only limiting factor is availability of volunteers/contributors. If you or anyone else is willing to lead a particular mapping, please let me/us know and we can see how to best move ahead. Otherwise, it'll be on the list after the common vocabularies (FOAF, vCard, etc.).

For DCAT, yes - there will be a proposal soon. Right now its in work-in-progress E.g. see https://harshp.com/research/publications/047-data-processing-activities-catalog for the general idea.

[coolharsh55]

Copying @clange asking about mapping to ODRL in dpvcg/dpv#11 - which is in scope of this issue.

[coolharsh55]

Thoughts on how to approach this:

• output should be a folder /mappings that contains RDF and HTML docs
• output should enable two kinds of views: (i) for each dpv concept show what external concepts are relevant, and (ii) for each specific external vocab show relevant DPV concepts
• mappings can be optionally in RDF (how to express these? Is there a mapping ontology?), otherwise for simplicity just create a spreadsheet and use that to populate the HTML docs

[besteves4]

Link to DPVCG work on aligning DPV and ODRL: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dpvcg/2022Oct/0006.html

[riannella]

Is there some (free?) tool that can be used to create/maintain the SKOS mappings?
(doing it by hand is tiresome!)