W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > June 2007

Re: [SKOS] ISSUE-33 "Minimal Fix" Proposal

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:42:31 +0200
Message-ID: <46729747.30109@few.vu.nl>
To: "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
CC: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, public-esw-thes@w3.org

Hi Alistair,

Sorry for being so dumb, but the week is now in its end and I've got 
problem to catch it all. Could you firm whther your minimal fix consists of:
- keeping the original grouping constructs
- forbidding the use of skos:narrower/broader between a collection and 
its 'more general' concept
- relying on sophisticated algorithm to generate hierarchies for 
grouping-aware applications
- asking thesaurus builders to create explicit broader/narrower links 
between the concept generalizing the collection and the concepts 
included in the collection (e.g. ex:milk skos:narrower ex:cowmilk), 
therefore ignoring the level of the grouping in the explicitation of the 
conceptual hierarchy

Cheers,

Antoine

PS: what are the 3 bars (|||) in the entailment rule table in the wiki page?
> Hi all,
>
> I propose the following section of the SKOS Semantics wiki draft as resolution of ISSUE-33 "Grouping Constructs" [1]:
>
> <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/Semantics/Grouping?action=recall&rev=2>
>
> This section implements the "Minimal Fix" proposal [2], with a few additional axiomatic triples to make explicit the OWL typing of properties and the disjointness of skos:Collection and skos:ConceptScheme.
>
> Note that this section does not address the issue of constructing a systematic hierarchical display, but delegates this responsibility to the SKOS Primer. Note also that the SKOS Primer section on grouping constructs is yet to be done, and that in particular I have not met Antoine's concerns below regarding nested collections.
>
> However, I suggest we accept this resolution for now (because it does fix the actual issue), and raise a new issue regarding the representation and construction of systematic hierarchical displays.
>
> ACTION: Alistair to propose minimal fix for resolution of issue 33 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/22-swd-minutes.html#action09]
>
> --done
>
> ACTION: Alistair to propose resolution for Issue-33 (minimal fix) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/12-swd-minutes.html#action12]
>
> --done
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alistair.
>
> [1] <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/33>
> [2] <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/GroupingConstructs/ProposalOne?action=recall&rev=8>
>
> --
> Alistair Miles
> Research Associate
> Science and Technology Facilities Council
> Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> Harwell Science and Innovation Campus
> Didcot
> Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
> United Kingdom
> Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
> Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
> Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440  
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org 
>> [mailto:public-swd-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Antoine Isaac
>> Sent: 22 May 2007 17:32
>> To: Miles, AJ (Alistair)
>> Cc: SWD WG; public-esw-thes@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: [SKOS] ISSUE-33 "Minimal Fix" Proposal
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I still wonder whether something should be added to [1] to 
>> fully convince me. I've looked at the intuitive description 
>> of the algorithm that is presented in there to insert nodes 
>> in the hierarchy, and it is really unclear about how it 
>> should deal with nested node labels. Indeed I'm pretty sure 
>> that the current description fails at giving a good strategy 
>> for them...
>>
>> I would propose that the proposal gives an idea about how to 
>> insert node labels in the hierarchy when we have situations 
>> as complex as:
>> -----
>> Styles and Periods
>>    <styles and periods by region>
>>        <The Islamic World>
>>            Saracenic
>>            pre-Islamic
>>            <Islamic World dynastic styles and periods>
>>                 Orthodox Caliphate
>>                 Umayyad
>>                 Abbasid
>> ------
>> (taken from [2])
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Antoine
>>
>> [1] 
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/GroupingConstruc
>> ts/ProposalOne
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/GroupingConstructs
>>     
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I've written up a possible resolution to ISSUE-33: 
>>>       
>> GroupingConstructs on the SWDWG wiki, see:
>>     
>>>       
>> <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/GroupingConstructs/Prop
>>     
>>> osalOne?action=recall&rev=8>
>>>
>>> Note that I am not necessarily endorsing this proposal. 
>>>       
>> This is a proposal which attempts to fix the issue with the 
>> minimum amount of change to the current SKOS specifications. 
>> There may, however, be good reasons for making more 
>> substantial changes, which are hinted at in the discussion. 
>> I'll try to write up some alternatives asap.
>>     
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Alistair.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alistair Miles
>>> Research Associate
>>> Science and Technology Facilities Council Rutherford Appleton 
>>> Laboratory Harwell Science and Innovation Campus Didcot Oxfordshire 
>>> OX11 0QX United Kingdom
>>> Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
>>> Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
>>> Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>   
Received on Friday, 15 June 2007 13:42:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:58 GMT