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

Proposal for a SPEK vocabulary RE: Subjects and perspectives in SKOS : the jack of all trades ...

From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:07:21 +0200
To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Cc: "Michel Biezunski" <mb@infoloom.com>
Message-ID: <GOEIKOOAMJONEFCANOKCKEGIHBAA.bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>


Hello all

To put in a more formal way what I have in mind about perspectives and aspects, I released
a proposal for a an extension of SKOS vocabulary, temptatively called SPEK [1], at
http://www.mondeca.com/lab/bernard/spek.rdf

I've deliberately hi-jacked the SKOS namespace by using
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/spek#

It's still very rough, but I hope is simple enough to carry the message.
An aspect uses a subset of the description of a resource relevant to a certain
perspective.
A perspective defines classes of resources and properties which are used by aspects using
it.

The examples given are just ... examples, they don't pretend to define in any absolute way
what is a "simple thesaurus" or a "simple taxonomy" or a "simple terminology". At the
opposite, they provide a way for any other community of users, or set of applications, to
specify what they understand and manage.

Comments welcome

Bernard

[1] SPEK is not supposed to be an acronym, it is the Indo-European root for "aspect",
"perspective" and others like "species", "scope", etc ...
See http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=spek
That said, any meaningful expansion is welcome :)

----------------------------------
Bernard Vatant
Mondeca Knowledge Engineering
bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
(+33) 0871 488 459

http://www.mondeca.com
http://universimmedia.blogspot.com
----------------------------------

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]De la part de Benjamin Nowack
> Envoyé : vendredi 21 octobre 2005 10:44
> À : public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Objet : Re: Subjects and perspectives in SKOS : the jack of all trades
> ...
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> not sure if I completely understood the current discussion,
> but if the proposal is to change
>
> [[
>   #myConcept a skos:Concept;
>              skos:prefLabel "my concept" .
> ]]
>
> to something more like
>
> [[
>   #myConcept a skos:Concept;
>              skos:term [
>                   a skos:Term;
>                   skos:termLabel "my concept";
>                   skos:termType "preferred";
>                   ...
>                   .
>              ] .
> ]]
>
> (i.e. some sort of middle node between concepts and their
> lexical representations), I'd rather prefer the current model.
> I can see the utility of the 2nd approach for certain use cases,
> (and in fact I proposed something similar for notes some months
> ago) but apart from requiring a more or less complete re-design of
> SKOS a couple of weeks before the whole initiative ends, I also
> think it'd slow down SKOS' deployment.
>
> I always considered SKOS as being targetted at non-pro info
> organizers (thus *Simple* KOS), and it is actually seen as a
> candidate to bring balance to the force, err, semweb technology
> to the masses. The current "core" design facilitates the
> implementation of editors and efficient SPARQL-based browsers,
> and also the upgrading of things such as blog categories etc.
> to a machine-friendly format.
>
> Just my 1.5 cents, I may well have missed the whole point of this
> thread, in this case I apologize for the blather.
>
> benjamin
>
> --
> Benjamin Nowack
> Chief Procrastination Officer
>
> Kruppstr. 100
> 45145 Essen, Germany
> http://www.bnode.org/
>
>
> On 20.10.2005 16:29:14, Sue Ellen Wright wrote:
> >Bernard wrote:
> >- or provide a way to express various perspectives, their respective
> >context, purpose,
> >rules, and the way to "hub" them (this is where hubjects could be relevant).
> >
> >The latter option if of course my favourite, even if much less obvious, it's
> >certainly a
> >winner in the long run.
> > This is precisely what I envision as well. What I'd love to see is a means
> >by which we could mutually "get at" concept-related information embedded in
> >other "perspectives" (which I often refer to as belonging to different
> >communities of practice). Even just in the terminology community, we've
> >identified multiple communities of practice. And we all have more to gain in
> >the long run from gentle(wo)manliness than discord because arguing about
> >perspective is about as useful as arguing about religion or sexual
> >preference -- it's a synch that we would never all agree on a single view,
> >and we'd end up losing a lot in the long run if we even tried.
> > Bye for now
> >Sue Ellen
> >
> > On 10/20/05, Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello all
> >>
> >> Browsing all those very interesting ongoing threads about possible
> >> extensions of SKOS,
> >> relations with OWL, types of notes, terms-as-concepts, relevancy to
> >> terminology, etc ...
> >> keeps bringing me back to the notion of *perspective* as currently
> >> explored by Michel
> >> Biezunski [1], which I'm currently trying to bring along with my own
> >> current ramblings
> >> [2].
> >>
> >> In the following, the *highlighted words* are used according to
> >> Biezunski's definition. Or
> >> at least they try to. Michel is in cc and will correct wherever I can get
> >> it wrong.
> >>
> >> According to Biezunski's terminology, a skos:Concept is a *proxy* for some
> >> *subject*, as
> >> any URI used in RDF is. The subject expressed by this proxy is in SKOS
> >> some abstract
> >> concept, likely to be expressed otherwise in many specific formal or
> >> unformal ways, in so
> >> many different schemes (thesaurus, taxonomy, ontology, terminology, ..)
> >> using so many
> >> different languages (SKOS, OWL, UML ...) and matching representation
> >> rules, and those
> >> expressions used in so many ways, for so many different purposes, in so
> >> many different
> >> contexts. A combination of all of those defines a *perspective* on the
> >> subject/concept.
> >>
> >> It's still unclear to me up to where a perspective on a skos:Concept can
> >> extend, were it
> >> to be defined. It could include at least the rdf:Description, and/or all
> >> related
> >> skos:Concepts in the same skos:ConceptScheme, or go as far as including
> >> this complete
> >> scheme, and this is certainly not the end of the story, since a useful
> >> perspective should
> >> certainly also include the purpose, ways, rules and context of use.
> >>
> >> In any case, this opens different interesting questions.
> >>
> >> The same URI can be used in different skos:Concept descriptions. So it has
> >> to be clarified
> >> if the proxy for the concept is the URI or one of its rdf:Description.
> >>
> >> The same skos:Concept can belong to, or be used in, a variety of
> >> perspectives. Not only
> >> because it can belong to various skos:ConceptScheme(s), but because each
> >> of those schemes
> >> can be used in different contexts, for different purposes, and in
> >> different ways :
> >> indexing and classification (which seems to be SKOS primary purpose), but
> >> also text mining
> >> and knowledge extraction, support for translation and publication tools
> >> ...
> >>
> >> Among all possible properties of a skos:Concept, some are only relevant to
> >> certain
> >> perspectives. Take for example the various kinds of notes, or properties
> >> on labels, or
> >> lexical properties of terms ...
> >>
> >> What does that lead us to? Interest for SKOS has attracted a variety of
> >> users with
> >> different perspectives (and that is really really good), each of them
> >> pushing gently (only
> >> gentle(wo)men here so far, very much appreciated) to allow the language to
> >> express, inside
> >> the same description of a single skos:Concept any other property relevant
> >> to their
> >> respective perspectives, at the risk of making at the end of the day such
> >> a description,
> >> as Stella rightly pointed, the jack of all trades and the master of none.
> >>
> >> Practically speaking, that means we are certainly at a point where SKOS
> >> should
> >> - either "close its scope", by specifying as much as possible in which
> >> kind of
> >> perspectives a skos:Concept is supposed to be used, and stick to the
> >> properties relevant
> >> to such perspectives.
> >> - or provide a way to express various perspectives, their respective
> >> context, purpose,
> >> rules, and the way to "hub" them (this is where hubjects could be
> >> relevant).
> >>
> >> The latter option if of course my favourite, even if much less obvious,
> >> it's certainly a
> >> winner in the long run.
> >>
> >> Enough for today. If there is some interest expressed in that, I can come
> >> up with more
> >> formal ideas about it.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >> Bernard
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>
> >>
> >http://www.mulberrytech.com/Extreme/Proceedings/html/2005/Biezunski01/EML2005Bi
> >ezunski01.h
> >> tml
> >> [2] http://www.google.com/search?q=hubject
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------
> >> Bernard Vatant
> >> Mondeca Knowledge Engineering
> >> bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
> >> (+33) 0871 488 459
> >>
> >> http://www.mondeca.com
> >> http://universimmedia.blogspot.com
> >> ----------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >Sue Ellen Wright
> >Institute for Applied Linguistics
> >Kent State University
> >Kent OH 44242 USA
> >sellenwright@gmail.com
> >swright@kent.edu
> >sewright@neo.rr.com
> >
>
Received on Friday, 21 October 2005 13:07:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:54 GMT