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

Re: [ISSUE-77] [ISSUE-48] Re: [Dbpedia-discussion] Skos subject properties are deprecated

From: Mikael Nilsson <mikael@nilsson.name>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:36:10 +0100
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>, dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net, SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1201181770.549.0.camel@daneel>


On tor, 2008-01-24 at 13:24 +0000, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> All,
> 
> I agree with Bernard that SKOS needs a property for attaching  
> resources to concepts.
> 
> The problem with skos:subject at the moment is this: The Core Guide  
> gives the impression that the domain of skos:subject is documents  
> only. But there is no explicit domain declared in the vocabulary  
> definition. Furthermore, several parties (e.g. DBpedia) have a clear  
> need for a property that relates non-document resources to  
> skos:Concepts.
> 
> I think there are three options for resolving this:
> 
> A) Clarify that the domain of skos:subject is indeed any resource, and  
> that the term “subject” is used loosely here.
> 
> B) Clarify that the domain of skos:subject is documents only, and  
> introduce a new super-property of skos:subject that explicitly covers  
> any resource. It could be named for example skos:category, or  
> skos:indexedAs.

How about dcterms:subject?

http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-subject

It's not 100% clear to me that a new property is actually needed.

/Mikael

> 
> C) Clarify that the domain of skos:subject is documents only, and  
> leave the task of defining a property non-document resources to others.
> 
> My preference would be, in that order, B), A), C).
> 
> Thanks,
> Richard
> 
> 
> On 24 Jan 2008, at 12:45, Bernard Vatant wrote:
> 
> > Hello all
> >
> > Some precisions before anyone gets carried away :-)
> > The latest SKOS draft Peter mentions is certainly the editor's draft  
> > at
> > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20080118
> > This is only an editor's draft and has no official status whatsoever
> > The skos:subject property is mentioned as "at risk", which means its  
> > relevancy is questioned. It's not *deprecated* so far AFAIK, but  
> > under discussion.
> > There are two related "open issues" on this
> > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/77
> > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/48 <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/77 
> > >
> >
> > I take, as Antoine (Isaac), that the later is a generalization of  
> > the former :
> > "The SKOS model should contain mechanisms to attach a given resource  
> > (e.g. corresponding to a document) to a concept the resource is  
> > about, e.g. to query for the resources described by a given concept."
> >
> > I think this is obvious. Otherwise what is the point of SKOS  
> > altogether? The property skos:subject was (and still is) candidate  
> > to support this mechanism. As has been pointed in e.g., the other  
> > ongoing thread on dbpedia list [1], the term "subject" can appear to  
> > be too specific in meaning to cover all cases of linking  a resource  
> > to a concept, and strange in some borderline cases. But it's more a  
> > question of terminology than a question of need of such a generic  
> > property. In the referenced thread, I think the criticism should be  
> > more interpreted as a weird construction of Wikipedia categories  
> > (some are very weird indeed) than as a mistake in using skos:subject  
> > in DBpedia to represent the Wikipedia categorisation.
> >
> > My take on this is that such a generic property is needed and should  
> > not be deprecated. Since a lot of people (including dbpedia folks,  
> > but not only) have started using skos:subject in the above quoted  
> > very generic sense, and I think they are OK to do so, it should be  
> > kept as is. But it should be put in best practices that whenever you  
> > want to specify an indexing property, you define a specific  
> > subproperty of skos:subject.
> >
> > SKOS specification should stress and explain what the *functional*  
> > semantics of this property are, and are not. Simply to *retrieve  
> > resources* indexed on a concept. Not to infer any specific semantics  
> > on the indexing link. Just : "If you are interested in this concept,  
> > here are resources dealing about it in some way". No more, no less.  
> > If you want to be more specific, use a specific subproperty.
> >
> > Bernard
> >
> >
> > [1] http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=834575810801231916m4729f854lf34f47fe9af0a746%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=dbpedia-discussion
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard Cyganiak a écrit :
> >> Peter,
> >>
> >> On 24 Jan 2008, at 05:41, Peter Ansell wrote:
> >>
> >>> I am new to this list, but in a discussion on another list we were
> >>> discussing the use of the skos:subject and related items, something
> >>> which dbpedia has invested in heavily to represent the wikipedia
> >>> category system.
> >>>
> >>> The latest SKOS draft has deprecated these properties.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Can you give us some background on this decision? I have a hard  
> >> time  understanding why this step was taken.
> >>
> >>
> >>> What will dbpedia use instead?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I don't know. Do you have any suggestions?
> >>
> >> Richard
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > -- 
> >
> > *Bernard Vatant
> > *Knowledge Engineering
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > *Mondeca**
> > *3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
> > Web:    www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com>
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > Tel:       +33 (0) 871 488 459
> > Mail:     bernard.vatant@mondeca.com <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com 
> > >
> > Blog:    Leçons de Choses <http://mondeca.wordpress.com/>
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
-- 
<mikael@nilsson.name>

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2008 13:36:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:59 GMT