5 thoughts on “An ontology for programmes

  1. I find your specification quite hard to read. The diagram at the top is good, but listing the classes and properties in alphabetical order makes it quite hard to follow.

    There’s also no explanation as to what “testing” and “unstable” mean.

    I wonder if the Brand > Series > Episode is enough to cover the full spread of programmes. What about brands that have sub-brands, or spin-off brands? The relationship between “episode” and “programme” is also confusing.

    In short, unless everyone else understands RDF and ontologies much better than me, we could do with more in the way of explanation and examples!

  2. Thanks for the feedback.

    The stages: “unstable”, “testing”, “stable” are roughly analogous to “alpha”, “beta” and “gold standard” in software development. But I grant you it’s not that clear – unfortunately there isn’t an agreed way to document changes in ontologies – I guess the SKOS stuff is close.

    It doesn’t model spin off programmes and other relationships between programme brands. But other relationships are modeled OK, I think. BTW Brands are things like Waking the Dead or Heroes (what would be a ‘sub-brand’ in your mind?)

    Why is the relationship between episode and programme confusing?

    But you’re right may be it’s a bit confusing without examples – I’ll right another post to expand on this when I get a moment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s