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: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:08:42 +0000
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: <711EBE18-FEFB-46D7-B046-10DA05DC80F9@cyganiak.de>
To: Mikael Nilsson <mikael@nilsson.name>


On 24 Jan 2008, at 13:36, Mikael Nilsson wrote:
>> 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

Like skos:subject, dcterms:subject seems to be intended for use on  
documents, not people or cities. Hence it doesn't really meet  
DBpedia's requirements.

Richard



>
>
> 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 14:08:55 GMT

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