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

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

From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:45:07 +0100
Message-ID: <4798DCB3.4080501@mondeca.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <Antoine.Isaac@KB.nl>
Cc: Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Mikael Nilsson <mikael@nilsson.name>, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>, dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net, SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>



Antoine Isaac a écrit :
>  
>
> I don't remember the precise reference, but I read once that an 
> antelope becomes a document as soon as it is in a zoo, which makes 
> quite some sense to me.
>
Briet, S. (1951). /Qu'est que la documentation?/. Paris: Editions 
Documentaires Industrielles et Techniques.
See http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~buckland/thing.html for 
references, including Simon's reference to Otlet

Note that this way older than most of us are, even including myself :-)
>
>
> Actually in your wikipedia case there might be a problem anyway. I 
> would not say that it is the TimBL resource which is about the history 
> of the net, but its description on wikipedia:
>
I would not say "TimBL's description on Wikipedia", but "TimBL as 
defined in his Wikipedia description"
>
> what if this description had been purely biological (size, hair color, 
> preferred beer)? In this case the categorization of the resource you 
> describe under "history of the internet" would be problematic, 
> wouldn't it?
>
If that case, the problem would not be in DBpedia interpretation, but in 
Wikipedia categorisation, which should change then to, well, say "Dating 
profile"?. The real problem here is to know if TimBL has only one 
identity, defined by a single URI (or the set of all its owl:sameAs 
equivalents), to which a consistent set of assertions can be attached. 
Seen at the level of current DBpedia, the answer is assumed to be "yes". 
But the more precisely you will look at it, the more you will need to 
split this so-called individual in a cluster of avatars (the child, the 
student, the CERN engineer, the tax-payer, the patient, the Web 
inventor, etc ...), which will at some point need different URIs and 
different descriptions if you want to keep some consistency. That will 
happen first in Wikipedia, when an article will be split in several 
ones, because the subject description has gained in complexity and 
accuracy. I guess DBpedia will synchronise, but what will happen to 
deprecated URIs? Astronomers know that, a single star to the naked eye 
is a multiple system in instruments, the number of components growing 
with the power of the instrument. In brief, looking closely at any thing 
leads most of the time to the loss of its identity/individuality. This 
fractal and evolving nature of reality we'll need to take into account 
in our systems, when semantics go beyond the naive notion of the world 
as a set of well-identified, pre-existing things.

We've just started scratching the surface of all this I'm afraid.

Bernard

-- 

*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/>
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2008 18:45:19 GMT

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