Explaining the difference between ResourceType and Resource
Excerpts from a Gitter chat:
elf-pavlik 13:27 Q: does it make sense to think in your terminology of ResourceType as ~ class definition and Resource as an instance of this class? - looking at diagrams again https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows#process-oriented-flow elf-pavlik 13:33 so Resource on reality level would actually mean a particular one /resources/243242 back on resource pattern which one could use in a want, this could work also similar to http://www.hydra-cg.com/spec/latest/triple-pattern-fragments/ bhaugen 13:39 Yes, loosely, ResourceType = class, Resource=instance, but... some patterns of use of ResourceType: Family: describing a family of resources, e.g. Herb elf-pavlik 13:40 looking at diagrams https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows#process-oriented-flow bhaugen 13:40 Species: describing something more specific than a Family, e.g. Basil ResourceTypes in practice are a taxonomy elf-pavlik 13:41 would it make sense to replace Resrouce with /resources/123 and Process with /processes/456 ? bhaugen 13:41 yes elf-pavlik 13:42 this way ResourceType could become just Resrouce and ProcessType could become just Process bhaugen 13:42 No Need distinction between type and instance levels Amazon offers ResourceTypes. You order one, you get a Resource. http://dhen.webfactional.com/accounting/resource-type/14/ elf-pavlik 13:44 https://schema.org/Product has 3 rdf:subClassOf https://schema.org/IndividualProduct | https://schema.org/ProductModel | https://schema.org/SomeProducts bhaugen 13:44 e.g. Dried Basil, Dried Basil in 2-oz package, etc schema.org is confused http://dhen.webfactional.com/accounting/resource-type/81/ http://dhen.webfactional.com/accounting/resource/477/ if Product = ResourceType, IndividualProduct is not a subclass not if you want it to actually work elf-pavlik 13:46 what problem do you see with it? bhaugen 13:47 they are ontologically different elf-pavlik 13:47 rdf:subClassOf ~= somehow more specific than but still qualifies as bhaugen 13:47 exactly an individual resource does not qualify as a type elf-pavlik 13:48 http://dhen.webfactional.com/accounting/resource-type/81/ (ResrouceType) and http://dhen.webfactional.com/accounting/resource/477/ (Resource) ? bhaugen 13:48 yes elf-pavlik 13:48 but Resource has particular instances bhaugen 13:48 yes elf-pavlik 13:48 ResourceType not as far as I understand bhaugen 13:49 depends on what you mean by instance elf-pavlik 13:49 a particular one http://dhen.webfactional.com/accounting/resource-type/81/ bhaugen 13:49 that's a particular type http://dhen.webfactional.com/accounting/resource/477/ that's a particular instance you can transfer the resource buy and sell elf-pavlik 13:50 but instance as IndividualProduct bhaugen 13:50 eat can't do any of that with the ResourceType hard to eat ResourceType elf-pavlik 13:51 how about https://schema.org/model bhaugen 13:51 dry, tasteless model looks like a ResourceType e.g. a particular model of a car elf-pavlik 13:51 IndividualProduct - model -> ProductModel bhaugen 13:51 an instance of that model of a car has a serial number and you can drive it if you can drive it or eat it or buy it at a store, it's a Resource the label describes its ResourceType a Species is analogous to a ResourceType our cat is analogous to a Resource an instance of (loosely) Domestic Cat @elf-pavlik looking again at http://www.productontology.org/#faq bhaugen 13:56 exactly what I am trying to say here Unfortunately, you cannot use DBpedia identifiers to indicate class membership, because they have a strange semantics. For instance, the DBpedia entry for "Soldering_iron", http://dbpedia.org/resource/Soldering_iron is defined to be an instance (!!) of the class http://dbpedia.org/class/yago/ElectronicsWorkTools That means, DBpedia says that the entity is an actual soldering iron, instead of being the topic "soldering iron" or a class.