Preventing ontological leakage in `AgentRelationshipRole`
This follows on from discussion @fosterlynn & I started in #423 (closed).
I don't see any issues regarding AgentRelationshipRole
; and the verbs are commented out, plus it has no fields defined in all_vf.TTL
. AFAIK it gives only label
& inverseLabel
, and has no classification in order to derive meaning from the field (in the VF repo, I have a commented-out field given as "category: AgentRelationshipCategory #TODO: figure out
").
Given the status of that, I don't see any way to define app-specific behaviours which are linked to certain agent relationships, which is the key use-case we're aiming to support, no? memberOf
/ partOf
/ peerOf
etc all seem to be deprecated. And would be really great to use these fields as a gateway into http://stratml.us/ or similar organisation management ontologies.
It seems an ommission to me to not have some structured ontology present around those fields in order to enable better reasoning around agent relationships whilst allowing the freedom for extension? And when it comes to creating custom names for things, wouldn't it be idiomatic to use owl:sameAs
and still base defaults on a well-known ontology, so that such extensions maintain ontological integrity?