process issues (was Re: Confused ... RE: Subject Indicators RE: Using SKOS RDF vocabulary in RDFS)

> If I understand the new policy statements correctly, this is now a 
> "proposed change" for the next review, i.e. no changes are 
> made to the 
> vocab now.

... ah but we haven't published first Public Working Drafts yet - i.e. technically we haven't completed the first review, we're still in the negotiation phase :)  Personally I don't mind when this gets done, before first PWD or in the next interim period.  

> 
> Maybe it makes sense to establish some standard phrase to indicate a 
> proposed change for use on the mailing list.

What we were doing during SWAD-E development was to put '[Proposal]' in the subject line of an email sent to public-esw-thes@w3.org ... which seemed to work OK.  

I'll set up a web page shortly for maintaining a list of proposals that are intended to be reviewed.

> 
> When is the next review scheduled?

I propose two months from date of publication of first PWD ... but need to get that approved at the next telecon.  Would that be OK with you?

Cheers,

Al.





> 
> Cheers,
> Mark.
> 
> 
> Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:
> > Hiya,
> > 
> > I propose to remove all statements involving the 
> skos:subjectIndicator property *as predicate* from the SKOS 
> Core Vocabulary itself for now, until we understand this issue better.
> > 
> > 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 Bernard Vatant
> >>Sent: 02 May 2005 12:02
> >>To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
> >>Cc: tm-pubsubj
> >>Subject: Confused ... RE: Subject Indicators RE: Using SKOS RDF
> >>vocabulary in RDFS
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Oops, in my previous message I have completely confused
> >>
> >>http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#Concept
> >>http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/#Concept
> >>
> >>... it figures
> >>
> >>1. I should not start by such conceptual things on Monday morning
> >>2. I should read more carefully
> >>3. I should have followed more closely the recent debates 
> >>over core and spec
> >>
> >>Anyway, starting now from those correct premises, all remarks 
> >>about recursive use of
> >>subjectIndicator seem irrelevant at first glance, since URIs 
> >>are distinct:
> >>
> >>core:foo  	 skos:subjectIndicator  	spec:foo
> >>
> >>But in a topic map environment, it is likely to be 
> >>interpreted as two URIs identifying the
> >>same subject anyway.
> >>The subject indicator at 
> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/#foo
> >>says to use the URI http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#foo
> >>
> >>But if you read closely the Published Subjects 
> >>recommendation, the URI of a subject
> >>indicator is considered as an identifier for the subject it 
> >>indicates/identifies.
> >>
> >>So http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/#foo is an identifier of
> >>http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#foo
> >>
> >>IOW, the following topics should be merged by a topic map 
> application
> >>
> >><topic id="foo-core">
> >>	<subjectIdentity>
> >>		<subjectIndicatorRef
> >>		xlink:href="http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#foo"/>
> >>	</subjectIdentity>
> >></topic>
> >>
> >><topic id="foo-spec">
> >>	<subjectIdentity>
> >>		<subjectIndicatorRef
> >>		
> >>xlink:href="http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/#foo"/>
> >>	</subjectIdentity>
> >></topic>
> >>
> >>So the real issue is : why do we need different URIs, since
> >>http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#foo could directly point 
> >>to the subject indicator ...
> >>
> >>Bernard
> >>
> >>
> >>>-----Message d'origine-----
> >>>De : public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
> >>>[mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]De la part de Bernard Vatant
> >>>Envoyé : lundi 2 mai 2005 11:03
> >>>À : public-esw-thes@w3.org
> >>>Cc : tm-pubsubj
> >>>Objet : Subject Indicators RE: Using SKOS RDF vocabulary in RDFS
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Hello Dean, and all
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>We have been looking into using the SKOS RDF vocabulary
> >>>>(http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core.rdf) with 
> >>
> >>RDFS-enabled tools, and
> >>
> >>>>have found some anomalies that make it difficult to 
> >>
> >>understand how SKOS
> >>
> >>>>is intended to be used.  In particular, we have loaded 
> >>
> >>the vocabulary
> >>
> >>>>into SWOOP, Protege and RDF Gateway.  When we first did 
> >>
> >>this, we thought
> >>
> >>>>we must have found bugs in these tools, because of the 
> >>
> >>strange results
> >>
> >>>>that we got.  But when we looked into core.rdf, it seems 
> >>
> >>that these
> >>
> >>>>things are part of SKOS itself.
> >>>
> >>>Sure they are. I had not looked at SKOS in SWOOP before, I 
> >>
> >>just did, and indeed some
> >>
> >>>things look weird.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>  <rdfs:Class rdf:ID="Concept">
> >>>>    <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">Concept</rdfs:label>
> >>>> ...
> >>>>    <skos:subjectIndicator
> >>>>rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/#Concept"/>
> >>>>...
> >>>>  </rdfs:Class>
> >>>
> >>>This recursive use of subjectIndicator is certainly not a 
> >>
> >>good idea, neither for this
> >>
> >>>element, nor other ones in the whole specification. The 
> >>
> >>information carried is that the
> >>
> >>>URI http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/#Concept 
> >>
> >>provides a definition of the
> >>
> >>>resource it defines. At best, it is tautological. Seems to 
> >>
> >>me that the property
> >>
> >>>skos:subjectIndicator should not use as declared value the 
> >>
> >>URI of its subject,
> >>
> >>>that is any
> >>>declaration.
> >>>
> >>>	a:foo   skos:subjectIndicator  	a:foo
> >>>
> >>>should be avoided
> >>>
> >>>Reminder : the intended use of subjectIndicator is 
> >>
> >>providing documentation of
> >>
> >>>vocabularies, such as
> >>>
> >>>	a:foo		skos:subjectIndicator		b:bar
> >>>
> >>>Where b:bar can be dereferenced to provide a human-readable 
> >>
> >>resource indicating the
> >>
> >>>subject, according to
> >>>
> >>
> >>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/3050/pubsubj
> >>-pt1-1.02-cs.pdf
> >>
> >>>(which BTW is the official OASIS Published Subjects 
> >>
> >>recommendation, and should
> >>
> >>>replace the
> >>>reference to the older draft
> >>>
> >>
> >>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tm-pubsubj/docs/recommend
> >>ations/general.htm in the
> >>
> >>>SKOS document)
> >>>
> >>>"A subject indicator is an information resource which 
> >>
> >>provides some kind of
> >>
> >>>compelling and
> >>>unambiguous indication of the identity of a subject to 
> >>
> >>humans. It may be a textual
> >>
> >>>definition, description or name; it may be a visual, audio or other
> >>>representation of the
> >>>subject; or it may be some combination of these. A subject 
> >>
> >>indicator is
> >>
> >>>distinct from the
> >>>subject that it indicates."
> >>>
> >>>Certainly http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/#Concept 
> >>
> >>is conformant to the above
> >>
> >>>definition *if used from an external vocabulary*.
> >>>
> >>>	myDomain:Concept   skos:subjectIndicator  skos:Concept
> >>>
> >>>Topic map reading of the latter being that myDomain:Concept 
> >>
> >>and skos:Concept,
> >>
> >>>or at least
> >>>their URIs define/identify the same subject, so the 
> >>
> >>difference with the
> >>
> >>>following is very
> >>>subtle:
> >>>
> >>>	myDomain:Concept   owl:equivalentClass  skos:Concept
> >>>
> >>>or even worse:
> >>>
> >>>	myDomain:Concept   owl:sameAs  skos:Concept
> >>>
> >>>since in topic map land, everything is a topic (read in OWL 
> >>
> >>: everything is an
> >>
> >>>individual)
> >>>
> >>>But clearly, the recursive declaration
> >>>
> >>>	skos:Concept  	skos:subjectIndicator  		skos:Concept
> >>>
> >>>seems to be inconsistent with : "A subject indicator is 
> >>
> >>distinct from the
> >>
> >>>subject that it
> >>>indicates".
> >>>
> >>>Moreover, in this triple, skos:Concept is implicitly 
> >>
> >>understood when subject of
> >>
> >>>the triple
> >>>as an abstract resource (Concept as owl:Class), and when 
> >>
> >>object of the triple, as the
> >>
> >>>information resource describing this abstract resource for 
> >>
> >>humans (the table in the spec
> >>
> >>>document). Web identity crisis strikes again.
> >>>See http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/identitycrisis.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Adding to the logical mess is certainly the following
> >>>
> >>>skos:subjectIndicator    rdfs:range		foaf:Document
> >>>
> >>>... since it entails, along with
> >>>
> >>>skos:Concept   skos:subjectIndicator  skos:Concept
> >>>
> >>>the following triple
> >>>
> >>>skos:Concept 	rdf:type  	 foaf:Document
> >>>
> >>>... which is indeed very bizarre
> >>>
> >>>Now the real issue is "who cares?". Seems unlikely that any 
> >>
> >>(useful) inference will ever
> >>
> >>>be done on the core vocabulary itself, except for the above 
> >>
> >>academic exercise. Inference
> >>
> >>>will be done inside and across vocabularies, for query of 
> >>
> >>relevant indexed resources,
> >>
> >>>vocabulary mapping, semantic extension/restriction of 
> >>
> >>search etc ... At that level, will
> >>
> >>>the above logical oddities be really a problem?
> >>>
> >>>Cheers
> >>>
> >>>Bernard
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>**************************************************************
> >>********************
> >>
> >>>Bernard Vatant
> >>>Senior Consultant
> >>>Knowledge Engineering
> >>>bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
> >>>
> >>>"Making Sense of Content" :  http://www.mondeca.com
> >>>"Everything is a Subject" :  http://universimmedia.blogspot.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>**************************************************************
> >>********************
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > 
> 
> -- 
>   Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
>         mark@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2005 13:37:40 UTC