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

[Christopher Gutteridge]

I think it's important to consider this in terms of what any 
organisation can do. I too, think Good Relations is the right thing for 
much of this. I agree hat a price of "0" is the correct way to describe 
free.

Possibly the price specification could have no value and a label of "Ask 
for a quote"?

On 17/06/12 22:25, Alexander Dutton wrote:
> On 14/06/12 15:06, Christopher Gutteridge wrote:
>> 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).
> I've had a look, and the only bits I think we can use as-is are the
> cerif:InfrastructureEntity class[1] and its subclasses. The
> relationships are all first-class (e.g.
> isLinkedByOrganisationUnit/linksToOrganisationUnit), and so seem
> overkill in this context.
>
> Other bits of it reproduce other vocabs (vcard, frbr, event, dc), and
> seem unnecessary.
>
>
> [1] http://spi-fm.uca.es/neologism/cerif#InfrastructureEntity
>
>> On 12/06/12 15:28, Alexander Dutton wrote:
>>
>>> 3. There's been talk in the SEESEC project of controlled
>>> vocabularies for 'service level': [snip]
>>>
>>> For "shareability", how about: [snip]
>> I can certainly set up the dereference, sure.
> Cool. I'll get back to you when I'm ready.
>
>> 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.
> Presumably, a person can use it if they're a member of any of the
> devisions/orgs.
>
>> 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.
> We're straying into GoodRelations territory here, i.e.
>
> :universityOfOxford gr:offers :useOfEquipment .
>
> :useOfEquipment a gr:Offering ;
>    rdfs:label "Available for use by members of the University of Oxford, …"
>    tio:includes [
>      a tio:TicketPlaceholder ;
>      tio:accessTo :equipment ] ;
>    gr:eligibleCustomerTypes :oxfordMembers, :membersOfUKHEIs,
> :commercialUsers
>
> In this case we define :oxfordMembers locally, and stick the others in a
> controlled vocab somewhere. In the absence of a gr:priceSpecification,
> then people should assume the price is negotiable/unspecified. If it's
> free:
>
> :useOfEquipment gr:priceSpecification [
>    a gr:PriceSpecification ;
>    rdfs:label "free"@en ;
>    gr:hasCurrencyValue 0 ;
>    gr:validThrough "2012-12-31T23:59:59"^^xsd:dateTime ] .
>
> For simplicity we could offer a shortcut, e.g.:
>
> :equipment ex:useOfferedTo :oxfordMembers, etc.
>
> or:
>
> :equipment ex:useOfferedTo :membersOfOwningInstitution, etc.
>
> though this wouldn't allow specifying prices, and I'm not sure I like
> the latter as ":joeBloggs ex:member :membersOfOwningInstitution" is
> undefined.
>
> <tongueInCheek>Unless we go SAML…</tongueInCheek>

-- 
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/