Ecosyste.ms: Awesome
An open API service indexing awesome lists of open source software.
https://github.com/doriantaylor/owl-ibis
The IBIS (bis) Vocabulary
https://github.com/doriantaylor/owl-ibis
Last synced: 24 days ago
JSON representation
The IBIS (bis) Vocabulary
- Host: GitHub
- URL: https://github.com/doriantaylor/owl-ibis
- Owner: doriantaylor
- License: apache-2.0
- Created: 2022-04-26T19:29:19.000Z (over 2 years ago)
- Default Branch: main
- Last Pushed: 2024-03-10T17:36:46.000Z (10 months ago)
- Last Synced: 2024-03-10T18:42:36.603Z (10 months ago)
- Language: Makefile
- Size: 58.6 KB
- Stars: 1
- Watchers: 3
- Forks: 0
- Open Issues: 1
-
Metadata Files:
- Readme: README.md
- License: LICENSE
Awesome Lists containing this project
README
# The IBIS ([bis](https://vocab.methodandstructure.com/ibis#explanation)) Vocabulary
Author
Dorian Taylor
Version
0.5
Created
December 11, 2012
Updated
December 12, 2012
February 24, 2014
February 22, 2018
March 24, 2019
December 18, 2023
January 4, 2024
Namespace URI
[`https://vocab.methodandstructure.com/ibis#`](https://vocab.methodandstructure.com/ibis#)
Preferred Namespace Prefix
`ibis`
This document specifies a vocabulary for describing an IBIS (issue-based
information system).
The purpose of this vocabulary is to express the necessary semantics for
the internal representation of—and interchange between—collaborative
software systems that facilitate structured argumentation and
issue-based reasoning. This vocabulary augments the semantic elements of
the gIBIS paper
by reusing components from, and thus integrating it into the Semantic
Web.
This document was inspired by work from Danny Ayers,
which, as of around October of 2012, has unfortunately disappeared from
the web. I developed this vocabulary to replace it. It
differs from the Ayers version primarily in that it is an
extension of SKOS, due to the suitability of the
Concept as a common ancestor for expressing the
fundamental IBIS types.
As with the other vocabularies on this site, this prose version is
canonical, and the
RDF/XML and
N3/Turtle versions are derived from it.
## Classes
### `Entity`
`ibis:Entity` is the abstract superclass of from which the more specific
entities are derived.
Subclass of:
skos:Concept
### `Issue`
An Issue is a state of affairs, claimed by one or more Agents to either
be a misfit itself, or affecting some other Issue or Position.
Subclass of:
ibis:Entity
Property restrictions:
skos:narrowerTransitive ∈
ibis:Issue
skos:broaderTransitive ∈
ibis:Issue
Disjoint with:
ibis:Position
### `Position`
A Position asserts a moral, ethical, pragmatic, or similar kind of
assertion, typically identifying what, if anything, should be done about
an Issue.
Subclass of:
ibis:Entity
Property restrictions:
skos:narrowerTransitive ∈
ibis:Position
skos:broaderTransitive ∈
ibis:Position
ibis:replaced-by ∈
ibis:Position
Disjoint with:
ibis:Issue
### `Argument`
An Argument is a type of Issue that explicitly supports or refutes a
Position.
> An Argument need not only relate in scope to another Argument, but it
> must only be replaced by another argument.
Subclass of:
ibis:Issue
Property restrictions:
ibis:replaces ∈
ibis:Argument
ibis:replaced-by ∈
ibis:Argument
Disjoint with:
ibis:Position
### `Invariant`
An `ibis:Entity` can be marked `ibis:Invariant` to denote that it has
been deemed outside of the influence of the agents in the system, i.e.,
something to be steered around.
Subclass of:
ibis:Entity
## Properties
### Agency
Since argumentation doesn't happen in a vacuum, it is important to
provide a mechanism for connecting agents (ideally people) to the
process. While the
Dublin Core and
provenance ontologies are available for
expressing authorship, there exist other agent-related considerations.
These terms are extensions to the original IBIS model.
#### `endorses`
An Agent can endorse a concept without having initially mentioned or
advanced it, and without any additional comment.
This term, along with ibis:endorsed-by, enables an Agent to signal its
agreement with a concept. To signal disagreement, explain why with an
ibis:Argument that ibis:opposes the concept.
Domain:
foaf:Agent
Range:
ibis:Entity
Inverse of:
ibis:endorsed-by
#### `endorsed by`
A concept can be endorsed by an Agent without said Agent having
mentioned or advanced it initially, and without any additional comment.
This term, along with ibis:endorses, enables an Agent to signal its
agreement with a concept. To signal disagreement, explain why with an
ibis:Argument that ibis:opposes the concept.
Domain:
ibis:Entity
Range:
foaf:Agent
Inverse of:
ibis:endorses
### Relations to Concepts
This IBIS vocabulary is based on SKOS, and therefore has a close
relationship with it. These properties connect IBIS to with skos
#### `concerns`
The subject is an issue concerning the object, which can be any
resource.
Domain:
ibis:Entity
Range:
owl:Thing
Inverse of:
ibis:concern-of
#### `concern-of`
The subject is an issue concerning the object, which can be any
resource.
Domain:
owl:Thing
Range:
ibis:Entity
Inverse of:
ibis:concerns
### Subordination and Superordination
While all IBIS terms inherit the semantic relations from SKOS, the IBIS
paper specifies mereological relations peculiar to Issues. I have
relaxed the constraint specified in the paper, such that these relations
are now merely vestigial.
#### `generalizes`
The subject is a more generic form of the object.
The equivalent property skos:narrower asserts that the object is
narrower than the subject, while the subject of ibis:generalizes is more
general than the object.
Domain:
ibis:Entity
Range:
ibis:Entity
Sub-property of:
skos:narrower
Inverse of:
ibis:specializes
#### `specializes`
The subject is a more specific form of the object.
The equivalent property skos:broader asserts that the object is broader
than the subject, while the subject of ibis:specializes is more specific
than the object.
Domain:
ibis:Entity
Range:
ibis:Entity
Sub-property of:
skos:broader
Inverse of:
ibis:generalizes
### Replacement
#### `replaces`
Indicates when a concept replaces another concept of the same type.
Domain:
ibis:Entity
Range:
ibis:Entity
Sub-property of:
dct:replaces
Inverse of:
ibis:replaced-by
#### `replaced-by`
Indicates when a concept is replaced by another concept of the same
type.
Domain:
ibis:Entity
Range:
ibis:Entity
Sub-property of:
dct:isReplacedBy
Inverse of:
ibis:replaces
### Suggestions
#### `suggests`
Indicates when the subject belief suggests the object issue.
Domain:
ibis:Entity
Range:
ibis:Issue
Sub-property of:
skos:semanticRelation
Inverse of:
ibis:suggested-by
#### `suggested-by`
Indicates when the subject issue is suggested by the object belief.
Domain:
ibis:Issue
Range:
ibis:Entity
Sub-property of:
skos:semanticRelation
Inverse of:
ibis:suggests
### Questions
#### `questions`
Indicates an issue that raises doubt on a belief.
Domain:
ibis:Issue
Range:
ibis:Entity
Sub-property of:
ibis:suggested-by
Inverse of:
ibis:questioned-by
#### `questioned-by`
Indicates a belief called into question by an issue.
Domain:
ibis:Entity
Range:
ibis:Issue
Sub-property of:
ibis:suggests
Inverse of:
ibis:questions
### Response
#### `response`
Indicates a position that responds to the subject issue.
Domain:
ibis:Issue
Range:
ibis:Position
Sub-property of:
skos:semanticRelation
Inverse of:
ibis:responds-to
#### `responds-to`
Indicates an issue to which the subject position responds.
Domain:
ibis:Position
Range:
ibis:Issue
Sub-property of:
skos:semanticRelation
Inverse of:
ibis:response
### Argumentation
#### `supports`
Indicates a subject argument that supports an object position.
Domain:
ibis:Argument
Range:
ibis:Position
Sub-property of:
skos:semanticRelation
Inverse of:
ibis:supported-by
#### `supported-by`
Indicates a subject position supported by an object argument.
Domain:
ibis:Position
Range:
ibis:Argument
Sub-property of:
skos:semanticRelation
Inverse of:
ibis:supports
#### `opposes`
Indicates a subject argument that opposes an object position.
Domain:
ibis:Argument
Range:
ibis:Position
Sub-property of:
skos:semanticRelation
Inverse of:
ibis:opposed-by
#### `opposed-by`
Indicates a subject position opposed by an object argument.
Domain:
ibis:Position
Range:
ibis:Argument
Sub-property of:
skos:semanticRelation
Inverse of:
ibis:opposes
## Revisions
The initial version of this vocabulary was adapted directly from the
gIBIS paper and [implemented as a Web
application](https://github.com/doriantaylor/p5-app-ibis). It was
immediately evident through use that it made little sense that an
[Argument](https://vocab.methodandstructure.com/ibis#Argument) was
something disjoint from an
[Issue](https://vocab.methodandstructure.com/ibis#Issue), both from a
semantic perspective, and from the perspective of implementing the user
interface. It made more sense, therefore, to make
[Argument](https://vocab.methodandstructure.com/ibis#Argument) a
subclass of [Issue](https://vocab.methodandstructure.com/ibis#Issue).
It also made sense to provide a mechanism to indicate the negotiability
of an [Issue](https://vocab.methodandstructure.com/ibis#Issue) or a
[Position](https://vocab.methodandstructure.com/ibis#Position). For
instance, we can imagine an
[Issue](https://vocab.methodandstructure.com/ibis#Issue) (or
[Argument](https://vocab.methodandstructure.com/ibis#Argument)) like
“The QWERTY keyboard is a ubiquitously familiar interface.” Consider
also a [Position](https://vocab.methodandstructure.com/ibis#Position)
expressing a standing policy prescription, like “Never appease a
tyrant.” In both these cases, it is useful to mark them as
[Invariant](https://vocab.methodandstructure.com/ibis#Invariant), which
we do by decorating them with the
[Invariant](https://vocab.methodandstructure.com/ibis#Invariant) class.
I initially created the
[generalizes](https://vocab.methodandstructure.com/ibis#generalizes),
[specializes](https://vocab.methodandstructure.com/ibis#specializes),
[replaces](https://vocab.methodandstructure.com/ibis#replaces), and
[replaced-by](https://vocab.methodandstructure.com/ibis#replaced-by)
predicates to correspond to the paper, but again, through use, it became
evident that the constraint that only an
[Issue](https://vocab.methodandstructure.com/ibis#Issue) could make use
of them made little sense.
Without this constraint, the
[generalizes](https://vocab.methodandstructure.com/ibis#generalizes)/[specializes](https://vocab.methodandstructure.com/ibis#specializes)
pair are redundant versus their super-properties,
[skos:narrower](http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#narrower) and
[skos:broader](http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#broader). I'm keeping
them around, though, as equivalent properties, because of the lexical
ambiguity in the SKOS terms. I also added same-class constraints, but
against
[skos:broaderTransitive](http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#broaderTransitive)
and
[skos:narrowerTransitive](http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#narrowerTransitive)
to reintroduce the potential for transitivity.
I decided to retain
[replaces](https://vocab.methodandstructure.com/ibis#replaces) and
[replaced-by](https://vocab.methodandstructure.com/ibis#replaced-by) as
sub-properties of their Dublin Core counterparts, though only to
reinforce them as object properties over the domain and range of
[skos:Concept](http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#Concept).
After enough time in the saddle, I am fairly convinced that
[questions](https://vocab.methodandstructure.com/ibis#questions) and
[suggests](https://vocab.methodandstructure.com/ibis#suggests) are
roughly inversely related, with questions being
a stronger form of
[suggested-by](https://vocab.methodandstructure.com/ibis#suggested-by),
and have such made the former a subproperty of the latter.
### Future Directions
Other IBIS implementations have an explicit concept of a *Question*,
which I considered but ultimately left out. There is already a
discontinuity between the grammatical form of a question and its purpose
in ordinary dialogue—i.e., are we actually asking for information or is
the question merely rhetorical. We don't need to confuse things further
by cementing that discontinuity into formal language.
There is also the natural tendency that once we have agreed on a
particular
[Position](https://vocab.methodandstructure.com/ibis#Position), that we
commit it to action. It is therefore tempting to extend the IBIS
vocabulary into some sort of project planning apparatus. I have chosen
instead to leave this vocabulary alone if possible, and extend it
through
a process model ontology.