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

Re: 'extending' SKOS Core

From: Thomas Baker (E-mail) <thomas.baker@BI.FHG.DE>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:35:42 +0100
To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20050127153542.GF1788@Octavius>

On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 03:40:19PM -0000, Alistair Miles wrote:
> Tom wrote:
> > 6. The phrase "extending SKOS Core" seems problematic for
> >    exactly the same reasons that the phrase "extending Dublin
> >    Core" is now seen as problematic in the DCMI context.
> >    Taken literally, the phrase implies that one is adding
> >    terms to the vocabulary maintained by DCMI.  Whereas it is
> >    typically intended to mean that Dublin Core (or SKOS) terms
> >    are being used together with terms from other vocabularies
> >    in constructing a more expressive model.  This ambiguity
> >    could perhaps be avoided with careful re-wording.
> 
> Have you got any suggestions Tom (or anyone else)?
> 
> In the context of SKOS Core, what I meant specifically by 'extending' is
> that you can 'extend' the SKOS Core set of properties and classes for
> modelling conceptual schemes, by creating and defining new properties and
> classes that are sub-properties/sub-classes of SKOS Core classes/properties.
> I guess that technically what I am talking about is creating 'refinements'
> of the SKOS Core vocabulary (this is how DCMI talks about this sort of thing
> as I understand?).  

Yes, it is.  And creating additional such properties and
classes in the SKOS Core vocabulary itself would indeed amount
to "extending" SKOS Core.  My point was that creating such
properties and classes in OTHER namespaces (i.e., outside
the SKOS vocabulary) should perhaps not be referred to as
"extending" the SKOS Core.

> However I use the words 'extending' and 'extensible' as buzzwords for
> talking about SKOS Core, because this feature of RDF (i.e. 'extension' via
> sub-prop & sub-class) is a major selling point for SKOS Core.  It means that
> SKOS Core can be a standard representation framework for KOS that doesn't
> break when you try to represent slightly quirky KOS.  You get
> interoperability without having to sacrifice flexibility.  People in the KOS
> community respond very well to this feature I have found.
> 
> Not sure what to do about this to avoid the potential ambiguity Tom
> describes.

I completely agree about emphasizing "extensibility" and
am just quibbling about what it is that is being extended.
It is hard to suggest a specific wording without getting
back to my broader point about selling the "SKOS model"
as opposed to the "SKOS vocabulary".  DCMI itself has moved
towards emphasizing the DCMI Model as opposed to emphasizing
the vocabulary itself.  The model is something that can be
used with vocabularies other than DCMI's.  I was suggesting
the same shift of emphasis for SKOS.

Tom

-- 
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 Thursday, 27 January 2005 15:33:42 GMT

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