CiTO

sketch

The Citation Typing Ontology: forty typed relations between documents, and the standard vocabulary of the SPAR ontologies. We borrow it for relations between claims, which is outside its intended scope.

docs/schema-mapping/cito-mapping.md · extensions in docs/schema-mapping/claim-relations.ttl

This tab is thin, and saying so is more useful than padding it. The mapping is forty-four lines of notes and a vocabulary file. Nothing has been validated, and no export targets CiTO directly — it is used inside the OXA export as the relation vocabulary.

What it requires

CiTO types the relationship between two documents — cito:supports, cito:extends, cito:disagreesWith, cito:usesMethodIn — as an OWL property with a domain and range of bibliographic resources. It is the standard vocabulary of the SPAR ontologies, and it has no notion of a claim within a paper.

How a claim tree maps onto it

Six of our relations have a CiTO property. The other eight are defined as CiTO subproperties, so a query written against CiTO still finds them.

Direct

supports extends qualifies disagreesWith usesMethodIn citesAsSourceDocument

Extensions

tests entails requires scopes interprets rulesOut replicates contradicts

The gap is instructive: CiTO covers the social relations between papers and misses the logical relations within an argument. Those missing types are what makes a claim graph different from a citation graph.

Does it validate

Unknown. docs/schema-mapping/claim-relations.ttl defines the eight extensions as OWL subproperties; nothing has been run against a reasoner, and no export is checked for CiTO conformance. That is a gap, not a result.

What it cannot carry

Anything below the document. CiTO relates works, so every relation in a claim tree is already outside its intended scope — the subproperties are a borrowing of its vocabulary, not a use of its model.

What we would ask its authors