W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > February 2005

RE: Indirection

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 16:52:12 -0000
Message-ID: <F5839D944C66C049BDB45F4C1E3DF89D18DB77@exchange31.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

.. And another thing - Dan you use wordnet nouns as classes.  Isn't that folding the layers of indirection?

Cheers,

Al.

---
Alistair Miles
Research Associate
CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Building R1 Room 1.60
Fermi Avenue
Chilton
Didcot
Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
United Kingdom
Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Miles, AJ 
> (Alistair)
> Sent: 04 February 2005 16:45
> To: Dan Brickley
> Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Subject: Indirection
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Dan, playing devil's advocate ...
> 
> > [[
> > SKOS Core is an extension of the RDF model [ref], which is 
> in turn an
> > extension of the graph data model [ref]. For an explanation of these
> > concepts, please refer to [ref]. The reader of this guide 
> > should have at
> > least a basic understanding of the RDF model and the graph 
> data model.
> > ]]
> > 
> > This needs a little rewrite. The term 'RDF model' is unfashionable, 
> > post-RDFCore. It used to mean, roughtly, 'graph data model', but 
> > now evokes Model Theory etc. SKOS isn't a 'semantic 
> extension' to the 
> > RDF model theory; this wording could give the impression it is. 
> 
> Why can't SKOS Core be a 'semantic extension' to the RDF model theory?
> 
> > It can be useful to
> > understand the subtle, layered relationship between SKOS and RDF, 
> > particularly when building applications that combine SKOS data with
> > other information modeled using RDF.
> 
> Your gonna hate me, but ... 
> 
> > This is the SKOS approach. Technically, it creates an extra 
> > layer of indirection, so that from the RDF point of view we are 
> > describing things such as 'The concept of Economic 
> > integration', rather 
> > than <em>Economic integration<em> itself. 
> 
> ... what's the difference?
> 
> Seriously, if I say ...
> 
> ex:A a skos:Concept.
> ex:B a rdfs:Class.
> 
> ... what fundamental commitments have I made about the 
> natures of ex:A and ex:B?
> 
> And what if I say ...
> 
> ex:C a skos:Concept; a rdfs:Class.
> 
> ... which inevitably will happen.  What does that mean?
> 
> ***We need an answer on whether skos:Concept and rdfs:Class 
> should be disjoint.***
> 
> If we don't make an explicit statement about this, they will 
> be used as if they are not disjoint. 
> 
> And if we believe they should be disjoint, we need to be able 
> to explain exactly what you gain by keeping them disjoint.
> 
> The 'two levels of abstraction' explanation is hard to grasp. 
>  If we want to enforce two levels of abstraction, we're going 
> to have to explain ourselves *extremely* well, and we're 
> going to have to dangle a bloody big carrot.
> 
> Or have I just asked, 'can a person ever get out of their own head?'
> 
> Taoists need not respond :)
> 
> Al.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 4 February 2005 16:52:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:53 GMT