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

Re: skos:Concept and "real world things"

From: François-Paul Servant <francois-paul.servant@renault.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 17:00:57 +0200
Message-ID: <4829AD29.2030300@renault.com>
To: rick@rickmurphy.org
CC: public-esw-thes@w3.org

Hi Rick,

thank you for your answer. I does indeed seem that I'll enjoy the thread you 
pointed. However, the concerns that I expressed in my question clearly are of a 
"triple hacker": what should I use to conveniently link my skos data to data 
published by the "Linking Open Data" (LOD) projects.
Here is why: I have a personal tagging tool, semanlink [1], where tags are skos 
like concepts. I use those tags to index bookmarks, developing my own SKOS 
scheme incrementally - that is creating "concepts" and organizing them when 
needed. Now, I have "tags" ("concepts") that correspond to animals, persons or 
cities that are already defined in the "LOD" datasets. I want to write the 
corresponding statements, in order to link my personal semanlink data to the LOD 
space. My question is: how should I be doing that.

Best Regards,


[1] http://www.semanlink.net

Rick Murphy a écrit :
> Hi Francois-Paul:
> I'm a lurker on the skos list and a more regular participant on the 
> ontolog forum where we discuss this issue quite regularly.
> François-Paul Servant wrote:
>> Hi,
>> In the "Linked Data" community, people give URIs to "real world 
>> things", such as animals, cities or persons.
>> In SKOS, we define and give URIs to concepts, "ideas or meanings that 
>> are unit of thoughts..."
>> It seems obvious that there is a deep (and possibly complex relation) 
>> between skos:Concept(s) and "real world (physical) things" (I would 
>> even say that, except maybe in very particular domains such as 
>> mathematics, there is no way to define a concept without relating it 
>> to "real world things").
>> 5) any better idea ?
> The short answer is yes, semiosis and pragmaticism. The RDF semantics 
> document is clear that it provides only a mechanical representation of 
> meaning, or truth mapping to the world called an interpretation. In 
> order to establish the kind of meaning you're looking for, you need to 
> extend the skos vocabulary to include both representation and 
> interpretation. Here's a a pointer to the ongoing discussion ...
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2008-05/msg00120.html
> I think you'll enjoy following this thread. In support of what is 
> referred to in the discussion as a relational theory of meaning, I make 
> available under a creating commons "by license" an OWL ontology based on 
> Charles Sander's Peirce's "On a New List of Categories" which is 
> grounded in Peirce's early semiotics.
> You can find that here ...
> http://www.rickmurphy.org/categories.owl
> Swoop and Pellet are the reference implementation. One you load the 
> ontology, turn on Pellet and you'll see the list classify as categories. 
> Of course there's much work to do, but I am happy to share with the skos 
> community.
>> Best Regards,
>> François-Paul Servant
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptSemantics
>> [2] http://moat-project.org/

François-Paul Servant
RENAULT/DSIR/DAMT Intelligence Artificielle Appliquée - SICG
+33 (1) 768 43830
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2008 15:01:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 13:32:10 UTC