W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > August 2008

RE: [SKOS] on concept validity and re-use (was Re: REVISION SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Reference)

From: Sini, Margherita (KCEW) <Margherita.Sini@fao.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:02:55 +0200
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: public-swd-wg@w3.org, SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Message-id: <BA453B6B6B217B4D95AF12DBA0BFB669029DB38F@hqgiex01.fao.org>

Hi Antoine,
 
Thanks for these explainations. But the URI is in my opinion very
important... so in the first case of reuse of concepts... I may have to reuse
the URI of another scheme... in  my scheme... Ok seems ok if, as you say, the
full definition of the concept are accepted (all relationships, labels,
etc)... otherwise mapping only...
Remain a problem if the original owner of the scheme changes the concept with
something that I (as the owner of another scheme that reuse that concept) do
not agree on... But here is the same problem for any ontology also.... i
suppose not easy answer for that... 
 
Ok i will point these later on if needed by providing other examples in the
SKOS list.
 
Regards
Margherita
 
 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl] 
	Sent: Mon 8/18/2008 10:57 
	To: Sini, Margherita (KCEW) 
	Cc: public-swd-wg@w3.org; SKOS 
	Subject: [SKOS] on concept validity and re-use (was Re: REVISION SKOS
Simple Knowledge Organization System Reference)
	
	

	Hi Margherita,
	
	Reacting on some points of your (very interesting btw) review
	
	> I also propose for other future releases of SKOS that the WG could
take in
	> consideration the notion of context of validity of concepts or
relationships,
	> maybe later on adding the notion of "extent" or "validity"... E.g.
a concept
	> or term (label) may be valid only in a specific geographical area
or at a
	> given time, and a relationship may be valid for a specific culture
only. ( I
	> can provide examples if needed, but as i said ... this may be for
other
	> releases... if the group think is good to adapt this).
	>  
	
	> 4.6.1. Closed vs. Open Systems
	>
	> I may have a problem with this <<<<MyConcept> takes part in two
different
	> concept schemes>>>... in fact this its true.... BUT.... if we go to
the
	> labels level... we may have to keep in kind that the same concept
may be
	> lexicalized differently in different schemes... How this will be
represented
	> in SKOS? there is no way yet (maybe?) to express that the labels
attached to
	> an skos:Concept may be from different schemes.... And what about
the URI of
	> the skos:Concept? will it be the one from one scheme (e.g.
<skos:Concept
	> rdf:about="http://www.fao.org/aims/aos/agrovoc#c_1939">) or from
the other
	> scheme (e.g. <skos:Concept
	> rdf:about="http://agclass.nal.usda.gov/nalt#cows">)?
	>  
	
	This is an interesting point that would deserve further discussion
	(maybe by the way the SKOS list is more adapted for that). I guess
also
	that it's not urgent, but will you provide these examples in the
future?
	At first glance I would have actually assumed an 'essential' view on
	semantic relationship and labelling properties. They define the
esence
	of a concept, and therefore if a relation is not always valid (at
least
	within one concept scheme) then it might reflect the need to have two
	concepts...
	
	> <<<This flexibility is desirable because it allows, for example,
new concept
	> schemes to be described by linking two or more existing concept
schemes
	> together.>>> but if it is so.... why there are the mapping elements
	> exactMatch, narrowMatch, etc... which can be used to link two or
more
	> existing concept schemes? This second solution infact, would
resolve the
	> problem of keeping the 2 distinc URi, be able to lexicalized
differently
	> concepts, but expressing that a concept may take part on 2
different schemes.
	>  
	
	The difference here is that if you have one concept in two schemes,
it
	should really be a case of re-use: when including the concept C from
a
	CS A, the designer of a CS B agree that the C entirely matches their
needs.
	For mappings, the concepts may have been created independentely, and
	have to be reconciled a posteriori for a specific application --
which
	will be most often different from the ones that motivated the design
of
	A and B
	
	
	Antoine
	
	>
	>
	>  
	
	
Received on Monday, 18 August 2008 19:03:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:39:00 GMT