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

RE: Concept spaces and Namespaces RE: Glossary of terms ...

From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:11:46 -0000
Message-ID: <F5839D944C66C049BDB45F4C1E3DF89D18DB46@exchange31.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

P.S. where would this place us in relation to 'ontologies'?  What is an
ontology again?

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: 18 January 2005 17:10
> To: 'public-esw-thes@w3.org'
> Subject: RE: Concept spaces and Namespaces RE: Glossary of terms ...
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding the question of the relationship between concept spaces and
> namespaces, +1 on what Chaals said.
> 
> Considering the idea of moving from talking about 'concept schemes' to
> 'concept spaces' for a moment:
> 
>  - We could work from a definition such as 'a concept space 
> is a set of
> concepts, and may include a set of relationships between 
> those concepts.'
> As far as I know, this is consistent current usage of 'concept space'.
> 
>  - However, 'concept space' is currently mostly used (as far 
> as I could
> find) to describe a network of terms (sic) with collocation metrics
> automatically generated by a computer algorithm from a document set.  
> 
>  - The 'skos:inScheme' property would need to be replaced too, with
> something like 'skos:inSpace' or just 'skos:space' (I hate it 
> when I can't
> think up good property names).  
> 
>  - Replacing the class 'skos:ConceptScheme' with 
> 'skos:ConceptSpace' and
> replacing 'skos:inScheme' with something else *is feasible* I 
> think (i.e.
> could be done without causing too much disruption), as the 
> semantics are
> essentially the same, meaning that the old and new property sets could
> happily cohabit for as long as it takes, with 
> owl:equivalent... statements
> linking them.
> 
> Do we want to do this?  How much do we want to be able to talk about
> 'concept spaces'?
> 
> Incidentally, I was also pondering changing 'skos:Collection' to
> 'skos:ConceptGroup' or something like that, (what about
> 'skos:ConceptSubSpace'? just kidding :) to avoid overlap of 
> 'collection'
> with RDF usage and with the library/museum notion of a 
> 'collection'.  Anyone
> have any opinions on this?
> 
> 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 Charles
> > McCathieNevile
> > Sent: 18 January 2005 16:15
> > To: Mark van Assem
> > Cc: Bernard Vatant; 'Thomas Baker'; Miles, AJ (Alistair);
> > public-esw-thes@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Concept spaces and Namespaces RE: Glossary of terms ...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Mark van Assem wrote:
> > 
> > >Salut from me too,
> > >
> > >> I think that it is not a good idea for the SKOS 
> > specification to try and
> > >> equate a namespace with a set of concepts described as a 
> > "scheme". If I want
> > >
> > >If I understand namespaces correctly, they are only a way 
> to provide
> > >unique names. If so, a particular namespace is not a 
> > "coherent" set of
> > >classes and properties. (Although this usually is the case, 
> > a namespace
> > >does not imply this.) The SKOS "concept scheme/space" does 
> have this
> > >stronger meaning (if I interpret the spec correctly).
> > 
> > Right. In particular, if I am a user, I might want to create a SKOS
> > collection of concepts/terms, which is mostly built from 
> > existing ones that
> > are identified by URIs that happen to have two or three 
> > "namespaces". I don't
> > see any reason to make a new namespace to duplicate these in 
> > a single place,
> > beyond aesthetic beauty for people who are perverse enoughto 
> > want to read
> > the underlying code rather than just get on with their real 
> > work of using the
> > collection.
> > 
> > >>>name *inside the concept space* before being ported to the 
> > RDF format. So an obvious
> > >>>migration practice will certainly be to use a single RDF 
> > namespace to somehow represent
> > >>>the concept space. I don't know if that should be 
> > recommended by the specification, or
> > >
> > >Probably it is a good practice, but if the above argument 
> holds, the
> > >concept scheme and inScheme property are still needed to 
> provide the
> > >stronger meaning of a coherent set.
> > 
> > I think the argument that the SKOS stuff is necessary is 
> > strong. Further,
> > there is no good reason I can see why I should not be able to 
> > use the same
> > namespace prefix for my SKOS collection, my ontology for 
> > discussing medieval
> > cookery, and a couple of extension terms I might write to 
> > refine Inkel's
> > vocabulary dealing with the languages people speak. The URI 
> > is just a string
> > used to provide a unique name, right?
> > 
> > cheers
> > 
> > Chaals
> > 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2005 17:12:23 GMT

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