Response to Ontology and Thesaurus Review
This is a response to the Critique of Ontology and Thesaurus V4.
Issues & Gaps:
vad:DrawingForm is used as a parent class in vad:PencilDrawing, vad:CharcoalDrawing, etc., but the class URI vad:DrawingForm is never declared ? the declared class is vad:Drawing. This is a subtle naming inconsistency that would cause inference errors in an OWL reasoner.Fixed by parenting the various forms of drawing to vad:Drawing
vad:hasMaterial: The property linking vad:CreativeWork to vad:ArtMaterial is commented out with no replacement, leaving a gap. Works can be described with vad:hasPaint, vad:hasPaper, and vad:hasTool, but there's no general material property, which limits breadth.Added vad:hasMaterial property back into the ontology.
vad:ArtistProfile under vad:Process is semantically misplaced ? a profile is not a process step. A better home would be under vad:ArtsPersonRole or a standalone class.Moved under vad:ArtsPersonRole.
vad:Rendition and vad:ComputerRendition under vad:Process ? similarly awkward. A rendition is more of a work artifact than a process.vad:Rendition now subclassed from vad:CreativeWork. A new vad:renditionOf property has been added to cwva with rdfs:domain vad:Rendition and rdfs:range vad:CreativeWork ;
vad:entity.ttl defines a parallel the:Entity class hierarchy (Artist, Work, Collection, etc.) in the thesaurus namespace. These overlap with the ontology's vad:Artist, vad:CreativeWork, and vad:ArtworkCollection. The relationship between them is not formally declared (e.g. no owl:equivalentClass or rdfs:subClassOf bridge).The two ontologies CWVA and the Entity ontology under the thesaurus namespace have evolved separately. The CWVA ontology serves the primary content, the art data, and Entity provides operational support for connecting concepts to these art data. Over time they may merge eliminating the perceived conflict. Declaring relationships between them is a reasonable interim solution but I?m hesitant to place an operational burden on CWVA perhaps reducing its universality.
Issues & Gaps:
the:paintingTerms while others point to the:paintingTerm (singular). Similarly the:watercolorPainting vs. the:watercolorPainting seems consistent, but the:visualArtTerms appears in concepts without a declared scheme resource. These mismatches can break SKOS navigation.The concept schemes are under review. Currently they support graphing of discrete sections of the thesaurus at a time.
skos:altfLabel typo in the:stainingColors ? should be skos:altLabel. This would silently fail in any SKOS processor.Fixed.
pigments.ttl has commented-out scheme declaration (the:HistoricalPigmentsScheme) but concepts still reference it via skos:inScheme. The scheme exists in practice but has no formal skos:ConceptScheme declaration, which breaks SKOS conformance.The concept schemes are under review. Currently they support graphing of discrete sections of the thesaurus at a time.
tensegrityVocab.ttl ? tensegrity is a structural engineering/sculpture concept that seems domain-appropriate for kinetic/spatial sculpture, but its relationship to the broader thesaurus hierarchy isn't established via skos:broader.This is not a valid issue. the:tensegritTerm has a skos:broader relationship to the:visualArtTerm
the:spattering) with embedded quotes that include escaped characters ? worth reviewing for cleanliness and copyright implications.All definitions have been reviewed to eliminate copyright issues. The embedded quotes concern is not an issue.