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 14:54:33 +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: <89D942F4-D4A2-4BE3-A426-B20BAA8C7F1D@cyganiak.de>
To: Mikael Nilsson <mikael@nilsson.name>


On 24 Jan 2008, at 14:13, Mikael Nilsson wrote:
>> 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.
>
> What is the basis for that assertion?
>
> Dublin Core has been very careful in using the word resource to  
> indicate
> that it is, in fact, applicable to more or less anything.

We have a skos:Concept for “History of the Internet”.

We have Tim Berners-Lee, the person, as a resource.

The question is how to relate them.

Saying that the “subject” of the person “Tim Berners-Lee” is “History  
of the Internet” is a bit of a stretch.

My problem is not with the term “resource”, but with the term  
“subject”. I don't doubt that DC properties, in general, are  
applicable to all kinds of resources. But some sorts of resources  
don't really have subjects.

Best,
Richard



>
>
> /Mikael
>
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
> -- 
> <mikael@nilsson.name>
>
> Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
>
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2008 14:54:56 GMT

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