W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > November 2004

RE: SKOS dodges the identity crisis? or not ...

From: Jason Cupp <jcupp@esri.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 22:31:26 -0800
Message-ID: <491DC5F3D279CD4EB4B157DDD62237F4055FBF05@zipwire.esri.com>
To: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org '" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

 That's a lot of work an engine would have to do, but I belive OWL IFPs
would do the job on a isomorphicly matched BNode. Someone willing to try
this in Jena? I don't want to get too carried away the kinds of Identity
Crisis issues that come from the topic map community -- I want to put RDF
and OWL to work and evaluate later... I want to see how online catalogs
(portals), syndicators and agents exchange SKOS and how they make sense of
it... Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: Houghton,Andrew
To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Sent: 11/19/2004 6:14 AM
Subject: RE: SKOS dodges the identity crisis? or not ...


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jason Cupp
> Sent: 19 November, 2004 02:25
> To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Subject: RE: SKOS dodges the identity crisis? or not ...
> 
> 
> By splitting the identifiers up between scheme and resource, 
> I think you'd loose the ability to do OWL IFPs. Sounds like 
> that's getting into the topic map reference model, where you 
> can declare a scheme for locators...?
> 
> You could create a subProperty of dc:identifier and make it 
> an OWL IFP, but that would be your declaration, just reguluar 
> dc:identifier shouldn't be an IFP, it's too generic -- like 
> an abstract base property. - Jason

I agree that you would want to create a SKOS specific subProperty
of dc:identifier and make it an OWL IFP.  I thought some more about
splitting the identifier between scheme and resource and OWL IFP's.
You could ammend my original example to something like:

<rdf:RDF>

  <rdf:Property rdf:about='http://www.w3.org/.../skos/core#conceptID'>
    <rdfs:subPropertyOf
rdf:resource='http://purl.org/dc/.../identifier'/>
    <owl:inverseOf rdf:resource='...'/>
  </rdf:Property>

  <rdf:Description rdf:about='http://example.org/thing'>
    <skos:subject>
      <skos:Concept>
        <skos:conceptID>
          <rdf:Description>
            <rdf:type>skos:ConceptScheme URI</rdf:type>
            <rdf:value>sh2003004821</rdf:value>
          </rdf:Description>
        </skos:conceptID>
      </skos:Concept>
    </skos:subject>
  </rdf:Description>

</rdf:RDF>

Thus, everything is embedded in the skos:conceptID.  This would also
mean that KOS publishers would only need to develop URI's for the
base skos:ConceptScheme and one for each expression/version, per
the SKOS Guide, guidelines.  Does the above example play nice with 
OWL IFP?


Andy.
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Houghton,Andrew [mailto:houghtoa@oclc.org]
> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 5:30 PM
> To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Subject: RE: SKOS dodges the identity crisis? or not ...
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Miles, AJ 
> > (Alistair)
> > Sent: 18 November, 2004 13:57
> > To: 'www-rdf-interest@w3.org'; 'public-esw-thes@w3.org'
> > Subject: RE: SKOS dodges the identity crisis? or not ...
> > 
> > 
> > Having just read this again, I'm going to shoot myself down and say 
> > that this interpretation is probably a bad idea.
> > 
> > But probably still worth talking about why it's no good.
> > 
> 
> Recently, while talking about rdf:nodeID, Miles pointed out 
> that one could do:
> 
> > <rdf:RDF>
> >   <rdf:Description
> > rdf:about="http://www.basc.org.uk/content/accessshooting">
> >     <skos:subject>
> >       <skos:Concept>
> >         <skos:subjectIndicator
> > rdf:resource="http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/schemasstandards/gcl.a
> > sp?term=446"/>
> >       </skos:Concept>
> >     </skos:subject>
> >   </rdf:Description>
> > </rdf:RDF>
> > 
> > The blank skos:Concept node in the above RDF description will be 
> > merged with the blank node from the GCL RDF description 
> with the same 
> > value for a subjectIndicator property (by an OWL reasoner 
> or a simple 
> > rule reasoner with a rule to support owl:InverseFunctionalProperty).
> 
> Which got me thinking about the identity crisis.  Some KOS do 
> have concept identifiers, but not URI's.  The publisher may 
> not wish to develop "official" URI's.  This becomes 
> problematic for the Semantic Web.  I'm not going to debate 
> why they wouldn't want to develop URI's, but it occurred to 
> me that if dc:identifier was an owl:InverseFunctionalProperty 
> then it would be possible to do something similar to above:
> 
> <rdf:RDF>
>   <rdf:Description rdf:about='http://example.org/thing'>
>     <skos:subject>
>       <skos:Concept>
>         <dc:identifier>concept-id</dc:identifier>
>       </skos:Concept>
>     </skos:subject>
>   </rdf:Description>
> </rdf:RDF>
> 
> One issue I glossed over is that the identifier would need to 
> be tied to some known identifier "scheme".  Maybe the base 
> skos:ConceptScheme,
> like:
> 
> <rdf:RDF>
>   <rdf:Description rdf:about='http://example.org/thing'>
>     <skos:subject>
>       <skos:Concept>
>         <skos:inScheme>
>           <dc:identifier>lcsh</dc:identifier>
>         </skos:inScheme>
>         <dc:identifier>sh2003004821</dc:identifier>
>       </skos:Concept>
>     </skos:subject>
>   </rdf:Description>
> </rdf:RDF>
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> 
> Andy.
> 
> 
> 
Received on Saturday, 20 November 2004 06:32:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:52 GMT