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

Re: Glossary of terms relating to thesauri and faceted classifica tion

From: 'Thomas Baker' <thomas.baker@bi.fhg.de>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:42:32 +0100
To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20050118134232.GA2052@Octavius>

On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 01:10:20PM -0000, Alistair Miles wrote:
> Just to mention this again, when I originally wrote about the 'terms of the
> SKOS Core vocabulary' in the guide and the spec I was following the DCMI
> conventions as Tom describes above.  This does seem to be at odds with the
> RDF conventions described below - which suggests to me that we should look
> for (or usurp :) some new vocabulary for talking about our RDF thingies.

Al,

I guess I would want first to establish whether the two
conventions really _are_ at odds.  Since the RDF convention
as I understand it does not quite make sense to me, I still
hold out hope that someone will explain that they are not as
different as they superficially appear.

Of the two explanatory styles (if they are different), I prefer
DCMI's and suspect that readers might find it more intuitive.
At any rate, I once heard Chaals say something to the effect
that you can use terms any way you want as long as you say
how they are defined...

Tom

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Al.
> 
> 
> > 
> > In contrast, the definitions of "RDF term" in RDF Semantics
> > and the SPARQL draft imply that the identifier _is_ the
> > modeling entity (not an identifier _for_ the modeling entity).
> > What you are saying, then, implies to me that an "RDF term"
> > (a URI) is not quite the same as a "DCMI term" (a conceptual
> > entity identified by a URI).
> > 
> > What, then, is a term in the SKOS vocabulary?  Reading on...:
> > 
> > > The SKOS vocabulary then, is a set of such entities...
> > 
> > Do you mean to say that a SKOS vocabulary is a set of URIs?
> > 
> > Would this mean that the DCMI use of "term" is at odds with
> > the RDF/SKOS use of "term"??
> > 
> > >                                     Since RDF uses URIs as 
> > a way to identify
> > > the things it relates, it is an easy shorthand in many 
> > cases to consider that
> > > the URIs are themselves the things.
> > 
> > Or is the RDF/SPARQL/SKOS way of putting things simply an
> > example of such a shorthand?  And that in reality, an RDF
> > vocabulary really _is_ a set of terms identified by URIs.
> > Assure me this is the case and I will provide you beer by
> > the case!
> > 
> > >                                     In many cases the 
> > distinction doesn't
> > > matter, but in some it does.
> > 
> > Or does it even really matter?  Convince me that it really,
> > really does not matter and I will provide two cases!  :)
> > 
> > Tom
> > 
> > [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/abstract-model/
> > 
> > -- 
> > Dr. Thomas Baker                        Thomas.Baker@izb.fraunhofer.de
> > Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven         mobile +49-160-9664-2129
> > Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft                          work +49-30-8109-9027
> > 53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany                    fax +49-2241-144-2352
> > Personal email: thbaker79@alumni.amherst.edu
> > 
> 

-- 
Dr. Thomas Baker                        Thomas.Baker@izb.fraunhofer.de
Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven         mobile +49-160-9664-2129
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft                          work +49-30-8109-9027
53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany                    fax +49-2241-144-2352
Personal email: thbaker79@alumni.amherst.edu
Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2005 13:40:45 GMT

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