Talk:Entities - Entités - Revision history

EricMadelaine: objects (in its general meaning) -> entities

2020-05-15T18:56:22Z

objects (in its general meaning) -> entities

EricMadelaine: EricMadelaine moved page Talk:Objects - Objets to Talk:Entities - Entités: Renamed the general concepts as Entities instead of Objects

2020-05-15T18:33:47Z

EricMadelaine moved page Talk:Objects - Objets to Talk:Entities - Entités: Renamed the general concepts as Entities instead of Objects

BTH: /* Topics 1 to 3 -- Sujets 1 à 3 */ suite traductions

2020-05-08T16:28:48Z

Topics 1 to 3 -- Sujets 1 à 3: suite traductions

BTH: /* Topics 4 to ... -- Sujets 4 à ... */

2020-05-08T16:18:24Z

Topics 4 to ... -- Sujets 4 à ...

BTH: /* Topics 4 to ... -- Sujets 4 à ... */ traduction de la contribution d'Olivier TESTA

2020-05-08T16:05:30Z

Topics 4 to ... -- Sujets 4 à ...: traduction de la contribution d'Olivier TESTA

BTH: sections ; traduction ; mise en forme

2020-05-08T14:33:44Z

sections ; traduction ; mise en forme

BTH: mise en forme ; proposition de mode agile par BTH

2020-05-07T15:21:41Z

mise en forme ; proposition de mode agile par BTH

BTH: classement des contribution par sujet (topic)

2020-05-07T11:14:30Z

classement des contribution par sujet (topic)

Furien at 06:17, 22 April 2020

2020-04-22T06:17:38Z

Furien at 06:16, 22 April 2020

2020-04-22T06:16:52Z

@@ Line 106: / Line 106: @@
-Generally, from reading the object descriptions presented on this [[Objects - Objets|wiki (Apr. 21, 2020)]], it seems like the links proposed under each object could be refined to be more usable, structured and meaningful. Some examples (non exhaustive):
+Generally, from reading the object descriptions presented on this [[Entities_-_Entités|wiki (Apr. 21, 2020)]], it seems like the links proposed under each object could be refined to be more usable, structured and meaningful. Some examples (non exhaustive):
 - I really don't see the underlying reality in directly linking a VOID and a PEOPLE.<br>
@@ Line 157: / Line 157: @@
-En général, en lisant les descriptions d'objets présentées dans la page [[Objects - Objets|wiki (Apr. 21, 2020)]], il semble que les liens proposés sous chaque objet pourraient être affinés afin d'être plus utilisable, structurés et porteurs de sens. Quelques exemples (non exhaustif) :
+En général, en lisant les descriptions d'objets présentées dans la page [[Entities_-_Entités|wiki (Apr. 21, 2020)]], il semble que les liens proposés sous chaque entité pourraient être affinés afin d'être plus utilisable, structurés et porteurs de sens. Quelques exemples (non exhaustif) :
 - Je ne vois pas la réalité sous-jacente au fait de lier directement un "VOID" avec un "PEOPLE".<br />
@@ Line 186: / Line 186: @@
 |  valign="top" | '''Agile mode'''
-The understanding of the web of objects, then its implementation, is obviously not simple. The perception of the level of abstraction of an ontology varies from one person to another. To converge more quickly towards a common global vision, we could adopt an agile mode which consists in defining an ontological core, a kind of "core of ontology", with a minimal number of objects, having a meaning as generic as possible.
+The understanding of the web of objects, then its implementation, is obviously not simple. The perception of the level of abstraction of an ontology varies from one person to another. To converge more quickly towards a common global vision, we could adopt an agile mode which consists in defining an ontological core, a kind of "core of ontology", with a minimal number of entities, having a meaning as generic as possible.
-For example, with the following 3 objects, it seems to me that we can build a prototype 3.0 which would serve as POC ('' proof of concept '') and then as a database kernel, allowing to guide the other partners in the progressive approach of their more specialized ontologies :
+For example, with the following 3 entities, it seems to me that we can build a prototype 3.0 which would serve as POC ('' proof of concept '') and then as a database kernel, allowing to guide the other partners in the progressive approach of their more specialized ontologies :
-* Object 1 = "Void - Vide" (which can be broken down into: crack, joint, room, gallery, well, sump, network, underground system, ..)
+* Entity 1 = "Void - Vide" (which can be broken down into: crack, joint, room, gallery, well, sump, network, underground system, ..)
-* Object 2 = "Point - Point" (which can be broken down into: entrance, topo point, observation point, POI, ...)
+* Entity 2 = "Point - Point" (which can be broken down into: entrance, topo point, observation point, POI, ...)
-* Object 3 = "Zone - Area" (which can be broken down into: administrative entity, massif, geological layer, access restriction, submerged area, passage with spelothems ...)
+* Entity 3 = "Zone - Area" (which can be broken down into: administrative entity, massif, geological layer, access restriction, submerged area, passage with spelothems ...)
 What do you think about it ?
@@ Line 201: / Line 201: @@
 |  valign="top" | '''Mode agile'''
-La compréhension du web des objets, puis sa mise en oeuvre, n'est visiblement pas simple. La perception du niveau d'abstraction d'une même ontologie varie d'une personne à l'autre. Pour converger plus vite vers une vision globale commune, nous pourrions adopter un mode agile qui consiste à définir un noyau ontologique, une sorte de "coeur d'ontologie", avec un nombre minimal d'objets, ayant un sens le plus générique possible.
+La compréhension du web des objets, puis sa mise en oeuvre, n'est visiblement pas simple. La perception du niveau d'abstraction d'une même ontologie varie d'une personne à l'autre. Pour converger plus vite vers une vision globale commune, nous pourrions adopter un mode agile qui consiste à définir un noyau ontologique, une sorte de "coeur d'ontologie", avec un nombre minimal d'entités, ayant un sens le plus générique possible.
-Par exemple, avec les 3 objets suivants, il me semble que l'on peut construire un prototype 3.0 qui servirait de POC (''proof of concept'') puis de noyau de base de données, permettant de guider les autres partenaires dans l'accostage progressif de leurs ontologies plus spécialisées :
+Par exemple, avec les 3 entités suivantes, il me semble que l'on peut construire un prototype 3.0 qui servirait de POC (''proof of concept'') puis de noyau de base de données, permettant de guider les autres partenaires dans l'accostage progressif de leurs ontologies plus spécialisées :
-* Objet 1 = "Vide - Void" (qui peut se décliner en : fissure, diaclase, salle, galerie, puits, siphon, réseau, système souterrain, ..)
+* Entité 1 = "Vide - Void" (qui peut se décliner en : fissure, diaclase, salle, galerie, puits, siphon, réseau, système souterrain, ..)
-* Objet 2 = "Point - Point" (qui peut se décliner en : entrée, point topo, point d'observation, POI,...)
+* Entité 2 = "Point - Point" (qui peut se décliner en : entrée, point topo, point d'observation, POI,...)
-* Objet 3 = "Zone - Area" (qui peut se décliner en : entité administrative, massif, couche géologique, restriction d'accès, zone noyée, zone concrétionnée...)
+* Entité 3 = "Zone - Area" (qui peut se décliner en : entité administrative, massif, couche géologique, restriction d'accès, zone noyée, zone concrétionnée...)
 Qu'en pensez-vous ?

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 {| class="wikitable  alternance left"
 |-
-!  width="50%" |''Topic 1'' : objects "cave" & "mine"
+!  width="50%" |''Topic 1'' : Objects "cave" & "mine"
-!  width="50%" |''Sujet 1'' : objets "cavité" et "mine"
+!  width="50%" |''Sujet 1'' : Objets "cavité" et "mine"
 |-
-|   valign="top" | "Cave", "mine" are in the same proposition A. It will be necessary to add other objects.
+|  valign="top" | "Cave", "mine" are in the same proposal A. It will be necessary to add other objects.
-If this proposition is not suitable it's possible to formulate another (B) possibly with the same objects described otherwise. or with other objects.
 [[User:Furien|Frédéric Urien]] ([[User talk:Furien|talk]]) 01:58, 1 March 2020 (CST)
-|  &nbsp;
+|  valign="top" | "Cave", "mine" sont dans la même proposition A. Il faudra ajouter d'autres objets.
 |-
-!  width="50%" | ''Topic 2'' : object "module"
+!  width="50%" | ''Topic 2'' : Object "Module"
-!  width="50%" | ''Sujet 2'' : objet "module"
+!  width="50%" | ''Sujet 2'' : Objet "Module"
 |-
-|    valign="top" | &nbsp;
+|    valign="top" | We propose object "Module" because it seems more appropriate to group the observations related to themes such as, bio-speleo, archaeology, geology, hydrology (tracing), rescue, environment, bibliographic references, etc.
-|    valign="top" | Nous proposons l'objet "module" car il nous semble plus opportun de regrouper les observations liées à des thèmes comme, la bio-spéléo, archéo, géologie, hydrologie (traçages), secours, environnement, références biblio, etc.
+|    valign="top" | Nous proposons l'objet "Module" car il nous semble plus opportun de regrouper les observations liées à des thèmes comme, la bio-spéléo, archéo, géologie, hydrologie (traçages), secours, environnement, références biblio, etc.
 [Patrick Degouve et François Ichas]

@@ Line 176: / Line 176: @@
 ''[Translated by BTH le 8 mai 2020 - Traduit par BTH le 8 mai 2020]''
 |-
-|  valign="top" | &nbsp;
+|  valign="top" | '''Agile mode'''
-|  valign="top" | '''Mode agile ?'''
+The understanding of the web of objects, then its implementation, is obviously not simple. The perception of the level of abstraction of an ontology varies from one person to another. To converge more quickly towards a common global vision, we could adopt an agile mode which consists in defining an ontological core, a kind of "core of ontology", with a minimal number of objects, having a meaning as generic as possible.
 La compréhension du web des objets, puis sa mise en oeuvre, n'est visiblement pas simple. La perception du niveau d'abstraction d'une même ontologie varie d'une personne à l'autre. Pour converger plus vite vers une vision globale commune, nous pourrions adopter un mode agile qui consiste à définir un noyau ontologique, une sorte de "coeur d'ontologie", avec un nombre minimal d'objets, ayant un sens le plus générique possible.

@@ Line 76: / Line 76: @@
 [[User:Furien|Frédéric Urien]] ([[User talk:Furien|talk]])
 |-
-| valign="top" | '''Food for thought:'''
+| valign="top" | '''Food for thought'''
 From my experience, it seems necessary to me to separate 2 (pseudo-)karst objects:
@@ Line 83: / Line 83: @@
 Regarding their relations:
 * a POINT is an abstract geographic object. It can have  coordinates, positionning error, confidentiality properties (and almost only that).
 * a SURF OBJ can be linked to a POINT, can have properties according to their type (i.e: diameter, length, height, depth, polygon, etc), DOCUMENTS (pictures)
 * a VOID can be linked to one or many SURF OBJ. A VOID is NOT linked to a POINT (VOIDs do not have intrinsic coordinates).*
 * an OBSERVATION can be linked to one POINT, can be linked to one VOID or SURF OBJ, people, organization)
 Generally, from reading the object descriptions presented on this [[Objects - Objets|wiki (Apr. 21, 2020)]], it seems like the links proposed under each object could be refined to be more usable, structured and meaningful. Some examples (non exhaustive):
-<br>
 - I really don't see the underlying reality in directly linking a VOID and a PEOPLE.<br>
 PEOPLE may be linked to organisations, to documents, to explorations, to observations.
-<br>
 - The reasons to link a VOID or a SURF OBJ to an organisation would be if the organisation is the owner or is in charge of protecting the VOID, or granting access to the SURF OBJ.
-<br>
-- I don't see the underlying reality in linking a point to an organisation or a document. <br>
+- I don't see the underlying reality in linking a point to an organisation or a document.<br>
 An organisation has an adress. A document can be linked to a VOID or an observation, not to a point.
-<br>
 - it is written "An underground cavity can be made up of underground cavity parts". <br>
 "Cavity parts" haven't been described and I think seem unnecessary.
 _*note 1: in case of a VOID not linked to a SURF OBJ, the VOID could be either of unknown position, or remote detected. in the latter case, a SURF OBJ called 'virtual' could be linked to the VOID for positioning
 --[[User:Olivier Testa|Olivier Testa]] ([[User talk:Olivier Testa|talk]]) 11:57, 21 April 2020 (CDT)
 ------
 Some elements to answer to [[User:Olivier Testa|Olivier Testa]]
 We have a link between void and person or organization like "visited", "explored", "discovered".
 About the relations between point and person or organisation they can be similar to those which I propose between void and person or organization.
 About the relationships between point and document: the csv temperature measurement file is a document which can be associated with the point where these measurements were made.
@@ Line 116: / Line 130: @@
 --[[User:Furien|Frédéric Urien]] ([[User talk:Furien|talk]]) 01:16, 22 April 2020 (CDT)
-| valign="top" | '''Nourrir la pensée'''
+| valign="top" | '''Nourrir les réflexions'''
 D'après mon expérience, il me semble nécessaire de distinguer deux objets concernant le (pseudo-)karst :
@@ Line 128: / Line 142: @@
 * Un "SURF OBJ" peut être lié à un "POINT", peut avoir des propriétés selon son type (par exemple : diamètre, longueur, hauteur, profondeur, polygone, etc), "DOCUMENTS" (images)
 * Un "VOID" peut être lié à un ou plusieurs "SURF OBJ". Un "VOID" n'est pas lié à un "POINT" (les "VOID"s n'ont pas de coordonnées intrinsèques)
 * Une "OBSERVATION" peut être liée à un "POINT", peut être liée à un "VOID" ou à un "SURF OBJ", un "PEOPLE", une "ORGANIZATION".
 |-
 |  valign="top" | &nbsp;

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 '''NOTA BENE''' : Le document qui sert de fil conducteur lors des conférences générales est disponible [https://www.dropbox.com/s/lmj0n2pv5sf5hlh/KarstLink%20-%20en%20-%2020avril2020.pdf?dl=0 ICI].
-|-
+== Topics 1 to 3 -- Sujets 1 à 3 ==
 !  ''Topic 1'' : objects "cave" & "mine"
-!  ''Sujet 1'' : objets "cavité" et "mine"
+{| class="wikitable  alternance left"
 |-
 |   valign="top" | "Cave", "mine" are in the same proposition A. It will be necessary to add other objects.
@@ Line 22: / Line 27: @@
 |  &nbsp;
 |-
-!  ''Topic 2'' : object "module"
+!  width="50%" | ''Topic 2'' : object "module"
-!  ''Sujet 2'' : objet "module"
+!  width="50%" | ''Sujet 2'' : objet "module"
 |-
 |    valign="top" | &nbsp;
@@ Line 32: / Line 37: @@
 |-
-!  ''Topic 3'' : Super-type "Observations"
+! width="50%" | ''Topic 3'' : Super-type "Observations"
-!  ''Sujet 3'' : Super-type "Observations"
+! width="50%" | ''Sujet 3'' : Super-type "Observations"
 |-
-|  valign="top" | On suggestion from my Semantic Web colleagues, I Introduced "Observations" as a "super type" for various observations and measurements. It simplifies the ontology, and make extensions easier. I think that it is a bit more specific than what Patrick and Francois call "modules", because I want observations to have many common relations with other objects, which may not be the case with e.g. bib-refs, or rescue information.
+|  valign="top" | On suggestion from my Semantic Web colleagues, I Introduced "Observations" as a "super type" for various observations and measurements.
 [Eric Madelaine, April 11]
-|   valign="top" |  À la suggestion de mes collègues du Web sémantique, j'ai présenté les «Observations» comme un «super type» pour diverses observations et mesures. Cela simplifie l'ontologie et facilite les extensions. Je pense que c'est un peu plus spécifique que ce que Patrick et François appellent des "modules", parce que je veux que les observations aient de nombreuses relations communes avec d'autres objets, ce n'est peut-être pas le cas par exemple pour les bib-refs, ou les secours.
+|   valign="top" |  À la suggestion de mes collègues du Web sémantique, j'ai présenté les « Observations » comme un « super type » pour diverses observations et mesures.
 [Eric Madelaine, April 11]
 |-
-!  ''Topic 4'' : Methodology
+! width="50%" | ''Topic 4'' : Methodology
-!  ''Sujet 4'' : Méthodologie
+! width="50%" | ''Sujet 4'' : Méthodologie
 |-
 | valign="top" | In fact each object is different and will therefore be represented by different properties and relationships. It is therefore essential to list the elements you wish to describe. Biblio references are already in place with the document object that is already in the list. for the others it is necessary to arrive to describe them and then we will seek if ontologies already exist.
 It will be necessary to ask whether they are specific objects or only properties of the cavities. We will make a specific object if we need to have a specific URI, as if we had a specific database which could exist without the others independently.
 [[User:Furien|Frédéric Urien]] ([[User talk:Furien|talk]])
@@ Line 62: / Line 79: @@
 From my experience, it seems necessary to me to separate 2 (pseudo-)karst objects:
-* ''Surface objects'' SURF OBJ (cave entrance, sump, spring, opening, ouvala, dolina, canyon, borehole, shafts, cenote, tiankeng, tsingy, etc etc).
+* ''Surface objects'' SURF OBJ (cave entrance, sump, spring, opening, ouvala, dolina, canyon, borehole, shafts, cenote, tiankeng, tsingy, etc).
 * ''Underground voids'' VOID (can be called: cave passage, mine, quarry, lave tube... but are basically the same)
@@ Line 71: / Line 88: @@
 * an OBSERVATION can be linked to one POINT, can be linked to one VOID or SURF OBJ, people, organization)
-Generally, from reading the object descriptions presented on the wiki (apr. 21, 2020), It seems like the links proposed under each object could be refined to be more usable, structured and meaningful. Some examples (non exhaustive):
 <br>
 - I really don't see the underlying reality in directly linking a VOID and a PEOPLE.<br>
@@ Line 97: / Line 116: @@
 --[[User:Furien|Frédéric Urien]] ([[User talk:Furien|talk]]) 01:16, 22 April 2020 (CDT)
-| valign="top" | &nbsp;
+| valign="top" | '''Nourrir la pensée'''
 |-
@@ Line 119: / Line 153: @@
 |-
-!  ''Topic 5'' : none, so far
+! width="50%" | ''Topic 5'' : none, so far
-!  ''Sujet 5'' : rien à ce jour
+! width="50%" | ''Sujet 5'' : rien à ce jour
 |-
 | valign="top" | bla bla
 | valign="top" | bla bla
 |-
-!  ''Topic 6'' :
+! width="50%" | ''Topic 6'' :
-!  ''Sujet 6'' :
+! width="50%" | ''Sujet 6'' :
 |-
 | valign="top" | etc.

← Older revision	Revision as of 18:33, 15 May 2020
(No difference)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:16, 22 April 2020
Line 47:		Line 47:
	--[[User:Olivier Testa\|Olivier Testa]] ([[User talk:Olivier Testa\|talk]]) 11:57, 21 April 2020 (CDT)		--[[User:Olivier Testa\|Olivier Testa]] ([[User talk:Olivier Testa\|talk]]) 11:57, 21 April 2020 (CDT)
	------		------
		+	Some elements to answer to [[User:Olivier Testa\|Olivier Testa]]
		+	We have a link between void and person or organization like "visited", "explored", "discovered"
		+	About the relations between point and person or organisation they can be similar to those which I propose between void and person or organization
		+	About the relationships between point and document: the csv temperature measurement file is a document which can be associated with the point where these measurements were made
		+
		+	--[[User:Furien\|Frédéric Urien]] ([[User talk:Furien\|talk]]) 01:16, 22 April 2020 (CDT)