As a semantic web application, VIVO uses ontologies to represent data. Many of the ontologies used by VIVO are developed by others. Some of the ontologies used by VIVO are developed by VIVO task forces in collaboration with OpenRIF, an ontology development group associated with VIVO. In particular, the VIVO-ISF Ontology is developed in collaboration with OpenRIF.
...
- Choice of ontologies
- Can we use the w3c time ontology to replace VIVO dateTime? Using a standard ontology would improve data sharing.
- Can we use the w3c org ontology to represent organizational concepts in VIVO? Using a standard ontology would improve data sharing.
- Can we use the w3c prov-o ontology to represent provenance concepts in VIVO?
- Can we use SPAR to represent scholarly works and citations?
- Use of numbered predicates and entities
- It is critically important that the objects and relationships in VIVO have lineage to fundamental information representation concepts. Currently, VIVO uses the Basic Formal Ontology as a top-level ontology. BFO is well-defined, well-structured, and is in wide use as a top-level ontology. But BFO, as with other ontologies, uses "numbered" predicates and class identifiers. Use of numbered predicates hinders human usage, both for reading data and for writing queries.
- Non-informative predicates
- Some predicates in VIVO do not convey a meaningful relationship between the subject and object. These can eventually be refined to provide meaning.
- Non-domain taxonomies.
- Academic degrees. VIVO needs a controlled vocabulary of academic degrees, but it is not VIVO's role to create one. When/if a controlled vocabulary of academic degrees is available, VIVO may want to move from its own vocabulary to a standard vocabulary.
- Organizational types. Similarly, VIVO is not in the business of defining the types of organizations. Yet VIVO needs an organizational taxonomy to represent scholarship. As/if a standard organizational taxonomy emerges that could be used by VIVO, VIVO may choose to adopt it.