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

RE: Proposal for a SPEK vocabulary

From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:48:50 +0200
To: "Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Cc: "Michel Biezunski" <mb@infoloom.com>
Message-ID: <GOEIKOOAMJONEFCANOKCAEGJHBAA.bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>


Just figured after sending the previous message that hubjects could fit in the SPEK
scheme, as connectors of various aspects.
Here they are now ...

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 : vendredi 21 octobre 2005 15:07
> À : public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Cc : Michel Biezunski
> Objet : Proposal for a SPEK vocabulary RE: Subjects and perspectives in
> SKOS : the jack of all trades ...
>
>
>
>
> 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 13:49:19 GMT

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