[Buildingdata] Re: [SEESEC] [UNIQUIP] Modelling equipment and facilities

[Christopher Gutteridge]

On 12/06/12 15:28, Alexander Dutton wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> [ c.f. http://openorg.ecs.soton.ac.uk/wiki/Facilities_and_Equipment ]
>
> Hi all,
>
> Three things:
>
> 1. I've just updated the above wiki page to encourage the use of
> GoodRelations to describe the manufacturer of something.[1] I've also
> suggested using OpenCorporates URIs for manufacturers.
Sounds good in a don't invent existing wheels kinda way.

I'm still not 100% sold that the cerif namespace I've used is a 
"official" thing and not just someone having a go at a mapping-- I've 
not really gone down the cerif rabbit hole(yet).
> 3. There's been talk in the SEESEC project of controlled vocabularies
> for 'service level', and I think there should also be a CV for whether
> something is shareable. According to SEESEC, terms in the "service
> level" vocab should be:
>
> - -Fully serviced = E.g. results provided on behalf of users.
>
> - -Technician assisted = E.g. technician on hand to help user produce
> results.
>
> - -Technician assisted&  training required = E.g. technician on hand to
> help user produce results, but prior training also required.
>
> - -Facility/Equipment only = E.g. users can turn up and use the
> facility/equipment without assistance.
>
> Does anyone object if I SKOSify this under e.g.
> http://purl.org/openorg/service-level/ ? Chris: Would it be possible
> to set up some de-referenceability for this?
>
> For "shareability", how about:
>
> * not shareable outside of organizational unit
> * not shareable outside of formal organization
> * shareable with other organizations
> * "it depends; ask"
>
> Obviously, none of these would be binding. We could get as complicated
> as SAML assertions, but that's probably a bad idea.
>
> If people are happy, shall I SKOSify this one too? (with a target of
> e.g. http://purl.org/openorg/shareability/)
I can certainly set up the dereference, sure.
Obviously there should also be "shareable with the general public"
"not shareable outside of organizational unit" AND "not shareable 
outside of formal organization" -- there's an edge case when an item is 
owned/operated by multiple divisions or formal organisations.

Is sharable strictly use-for-free or can it include use-with-fee? We 
should include "private individuals" as the widest option, and consider 
"with other public sector organisations" and "with charities and not for 
profit organisations" -- these are for completeness, I don't expect 
they'll be used much but better to have them ready. These are subject to 
sanity checking by the other players, strawmen, if you will.

>
> Yours,
>
> Alex
>
> [1]
> http://openorg.ecs.soton.ac.uk/index.php?title=Facilities_and_Equipment&diff=334&oldid=322
>
> [2] http://www.heppnetz.de/ontologies/goodrelations/goodrelations-UML.png
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJP11H2AAoJEPotabD1ANF7bKAIALLXq1eUOtdLruLeK2NXpc3q
> IcNTtMJ/OxWIqkXPGQWDMIR2cGLTSpj7BH0OZIpK/tHIpivzp05B+pis1Uw1P6m0
> SwfEHCgLLW8aaJsGlZ0LiLO4v1ekJRgvkq3dOTrcVTt0IRBsrcwDWri/qOY5bKpA
> FmR+hkJO9LTEwFmsaZ68D9oo3EYbRNLcU8RBrAGo8Qb0JV42qRDeXyrKpSSNsyoZ
> y50/Unx499x/Dl0vS54yX3ZC0mEydYd8lkF8ZcaCNPzpAtM6PYqpRy/I5K3PGX1d
> ZYoYIQKs8ZQiG/rsIerXf3uvChmq6gdU8TYIoLN2cqDqJ8YlFRfnmA1RaJsExFk=
> =G9L4
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Christopher Gutteridge -- http://id.ecs.soton.ac.uk/person/1248

/ Lead Developer, EPrints Project, http://eprints.org/
/ Web Projects Manager, ECS, University of Southampton, http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/
/ Webmaster, Web Science Trust, http://www.webscience.org/