# Is there an ontology for ontologies? **URL:** \ **Category:** Linked Data\ **Created:** [March 29, 2020, 11:19am UTC](https://forum.solidproject.org/t/is-there-an-ontology-for-ontologies/2810 "2020-03-29T11:19:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![anon36056958](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@anon36056958](https://forum.solidproject.org/u/anon36056958)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2020, 11:19am UTC](https://forum.solidproject.org/t/is-there-an-ontology-for-ontologies/2810/1 "2020-03-29T11:19:25Z")
Is there somewhere an ontology for ontologies? What would it need? intended domain collateral domains specialization of (some ontology) generalization of (some ontology) synonyms (in other ontologies) antonyms (in other ontologies) type of (ontological) structures structure (of this ontology) main features based on (foundation ontologies) classes taxonomy links to (other ontologies) representational units composite representations terms concepts sounds like btw @MitziLaszlo, can we add a Linked Data or Linked Data for Solid category? ---
**Author:** ![Smag0](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/forum.solidproject.org/smag0/32/310_2.png) [@Smag0](https://forum.solidproject.org/u/Smag0)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2020, 12:52pm UTC](https://forum.solidproject.org/t/is-there-an-ontology-for-ontologies/2810/2 "2020-03-29T12:52:34Z")
Did you look at owl that describe ontology, version of ontology, doc of ontology… [https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-syntax-20121211/#Ontology\_IRI\_and\_Version\_IRI](https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-syntax-20121211/#Ontology_IRI_and_Version_IRI) ---
**Author:** ![anon36056958](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@anon36056958](https://forum.solidproject.org/u/anon36056958)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2020, 1:06pm UTC](https://forum.solidproject.org/t/is-there-an-ontology-for-ontologies/2810/3 "2020-03-29T13:06:48Z")
That seems to be used just to point to different ontologies instead of describing more general differences between them, unless I’m missing something? An ontology of ontologies would be useful to describe ontologies so they could be found on a pod according to what they do and how they’re related, also maybe some measures of their adoption. ---
**Author:** ![Smag0](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/forum.solidproject.org/smag0/32/310_2.png) [@Smag0](https://forum.solidproject.org/u/Smag0)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2020, 2:19pm UTC](https://forum.solidproject.org/t/is-there-an-ontology-for-ontologies/2810/4 "2020-03-29T14:19:34Z")
Something like Active ontology tab in Protege ? [https://protegewiki.stanford.edu/wiki/Pr4\_UG\_rt\_Active\_Ontology](https://protegewiki.stanford.edu/wiki/Pr4_UG_rt_Active_Ontology) ---
**Author:** ![anon36056958](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@anon36056958](https://forum.solidproject.org/u/anon36056958)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2020, 2:30pm UTC](https://forum.solidproject.org/t/is-there-an-ontology-for-ontologies/2810/5 "2020-03-29T14:30:19Z")
Is the ‘active ontology’ an ontology or just the current on that is ‘active’ in the protege tool? edit: thanks, that led me to > **[sifrproject/MOD-Ontology](https://github.com/sifrproject/MOD-Ontology)** > > Metadata for Ontology Description and Publication Ontology ---
**Author:** ![jeffz](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/forum.solidproject.org/jeffz/32/600_2.png) [@jeffz](https://forum.solidproject.org/u/jeffz)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2020, 4:29pm UTC](https://forum.solidproject.org/t/is-there-an-ontology-for-ontologies/2810/6 "2020-03-29T16:29:44Z")
Nice find! ---
**Author:** ![anon36056958](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@anon36056958](https://forum.solidproject.org/u/anon36056958)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2020, 5:33pm UTC](https://forum.solidproject.org/t/is-there-an-ontology-for-ontologies/2810/7 "2020-03-29T17:33:47Z")
they say “We are also currenlty discussing MOD 2.0 that would be designed as a profile of DCAT.” then from [https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#profiles](https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#profiles) : “A DCAT profile is a specification for a data catalog that adds additional constraints to DCAT. A data catalog that conforms to the profile also conforms to DCAT.” and Dcat has an alignment with [schema.org](http://schema.org): [https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#dcat-sdo](https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#dcat-sdo) So I don’t know where its all going 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![zwifi](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/forum.solidproject.org/zwifi/32/1525_2.png) [@zwifi](https://forum.solidproject.org/u/zwifi)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2020, 7:25am UTC](https://forum.solidproject.org/t/is-there-an-ontology-for-ontologies/2810/8 "2020-03-30T07:25:22Z")
Hello, I don’t know of an ontology of ontologies per se, but as @Smag0 pointed out, a lot of the features you describe may be achieved using a combination of well-known ontologies: - specialization/generalization/extension of vocabularies can be captured with Vocabulary Of A Friend (VOAF): [https://lov.linkeddata.es/vocommons/voaf/v2.3/](https://lov.linkeddata.es/vocommons/voaf/v2.3/), see `specializes` or `extends` - Synonyms and antonyms can (somewhat) be captured with OWL, with `olw:sameAs` and `owl:disjointWith`. - `Links to` can be materialized with `rdfs:seeAlso` - The `Intended domain` can be referenced with `foaf:primaryTopic`, and collateral domains with `foaf:topic` - You could be interested in discussion about ontological structures seen as desig patterns: [http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Main\_Page](http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Main_Page) I’m interested in the follow-up on DCAT 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Smag0](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/forum.solidproject.org/smag0/32/310_2.png) [@Smag0](https://forum.solidproject.org/u/Smag0)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2020, 8:25am UTC](https://forum.solidproject.org/t/is-there-an-ontology-for-ontologies/2810/9 "2020-03-30T08:25:30Z")
That question invite me to propose all a new app [https://scenaristeur.github.io/holon/#](https://scenaristeur.github.io/holon/#) that allow us to share that kind of knowledge in a decentralized way : Tension created [https://holacratie.solid.community/public/Tension/Ontology\_of\_Ontology/index.ttl](https://holacratie.solid.community/public/Tension/Ontology_of_Ontology/index.ttl) that everyone can edit 😊 ---
**Author:** ![anon36056958](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@anon36056958](https://forum.solidproject.org/u/anon36056958)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2020, 10:32am UTC](https://forum.solidproject.org/t/is-there-an-ontology-for-ontologies/2810/10 "2020-03-30T10:32:22Z")
Just as its empire is falling apart, the U.S. government seems to be beginning to get some linked data together. At [https://resources.data.gov/](https://resources.data.gov/) they have a link to a dcat schema called the Project Open Data Metadata Schema at [https://resources.data.gov/schemas/dcat-us/v1.1/](https://resources.data.gov/schemas/dcat-us/v1.1/) They abbreviate Project Open Data with POD 🙂 Also, from [https://ec-jrc.github.io/dcat-ap-to-schema-org/#alignment-issues](https://ec-jrc.github.io/dcat-ap-to-schema-org/#alignment-issues), "A general issue is determined by the fact that [Schema.org](http://schema.org/) and DCAT-AP address different use cases. More precisely, the main purpose of [Schema.org](http://schema.org/) is to enhance discovery and indexing of online resources via search engines. As such, it is addressing more general objectives compared with DCAT-AP, that is instead meant to model in detail information on datasets and data catalogues. One of the main consequences is that some information that is relevant in DCAT-AP it is not modelled in [Schema.org](http://schema.org/) with specific terms. This results in a relevant amount of (a) “missing” and (b) “many-to-one” mappings - i.e., different metadata elements of DCAT-AP are mapped to the same element in [Schema.org](http://schema.org/)." ---
**Author:** ![MitziLaszlo](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/forum.solidproject.org/mitzilaszlo/32/191_2.png) [@MitziLaszlo](https://forum.solidproject.org/u/MitziLaszlo)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2020, 10:35am UTC](https://forum.solidproject.org/t/is-there-an-ontology-for-ontologies/2810/11 "2020-03-30T10:35:15Z")
@anon36056958 yes of course [http://forum.solidproject.org/c/build-a-solid-app/linked-data](http://forum.solidproject.org/c/build-a-solid-app/linked-data) ---
**Author:** ![happybeing](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/forum.solidproject.org/happybeing/32/59_2.png) [@happybeing](https://forum.solidproject.org/u/happybeing)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2020, 11:57am UTC](https://forum.solidproject.org/t/is-there-an-ontology-for-ontologies/2810/12 "2020-03-30T11:57:03Z")
Unfortunately with DCAT they appear to be developing yet another ‘standard’. It isn’t RDF and I’m not sure it is even JSON-LD. From my reading it seems to be either a subset of JSON-LD or is a non RDF compliant form of JSON-LD which will make it difficult to work with using tools and libraries that are built for RDF. It isn’t clear, but it may be that they’ve designed it so that they can consume RDF compatible JSON-LD, but not the other way around. Kind of parasitic. Perhaps someone who understands the technicalities better than me can correct or confirm. ---
**Author:** ![anon36056958](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@anon36056958](https://forum.solidproject.org/u/anon36056958)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2020, 11:58am UTC](https://forum.solidproject.org/t/is-there-an-ontology-for-ontologies/2810/13 "2020-03-30T11:58:48Z")
oh wow thank you, are you sure? from [https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat](https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat) "DCAT is an RDF vocabulary designed to facilitate interoperability between data catalogs published on the Web. " The U.S. government parasitical? 😱 ---
**Author:** ![happybeing](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/forum.solidproject.org/happybeing/32/59_2.png) [@happybeing](https://forum.solidproject.org/u/happybeing)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2020, 1:22pm UTC](https://forum.solidproject.org/t/is-there-an-ontology-for-ontologies/2810/14 "2020-03-30T13:22:32Z")
Hopefully I am wrong and your link does make it clear that DCAT is an RDF ontology. I think my question is whether they are using it to describe RDF resources or not because the description of its use doesn’t mention RDF, only JSON and JSON-LD, and describes how much of the JSON-LD is optional which I’m taking as meaning it is not RDF compliant. However, for your purposes you can still use DCAT in RDF resources. So maybe it is more that they are using an RDF ontology to define their non RDF compliant schema? ---
**Author:** ![anon36056958](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@anon36056958](https://forum.solidproject.org/u/anon36056958)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2020, 1:39pm UTC](https://forum.solidproject.org/t/is-there-an-ontology-for-ontologies/2810/15 "2020-03-30T13:39:13Z")
I just asked at > **[linkeddata/chat](https://gitter.im/linkeddata/chat?at=5e81f60b770a892bfb1e64ee)** > > @sideshowtom: Hi ... This question is for anybody with an opinion on it... I hope I'm not asking for trouble here... I am wondering about the merits of dcat, https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/, versus schema.org to catalog a repository of ontologies... ---
**Author:** ![anon36056958](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@anon36056958](https://forum.solidproject.org/u/anon36056958)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2020, 3:26pm UTC](https://forum.solidproject.org/t/is-there-an-ontology-for-ontologies/2810/16 "2020-03-30T15:26:31Z")
Feedback at gitter.im/linkeddata/chat so far seems to indicate dcat is the goto ontology ---
**Author:** ![jeffz](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/forum.solidproject.org/jeffz/32/600_2.png) [@jeffz](https://forum.solidproject.org/u/jeffz)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2020, 11:28pm UTC](https://forum.solidproject.org/t/is-there-an-ontology-for-ontologies/2810/17 "2020-03-30T23:28:36Z")
Thanks to @sideshowtom in the chat : [Vocabulary of Linked Datasets](https://www.w3.org/TR/void/) - how cool is that!