W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > November 2009

Re: [Dbpedia-discussion] Using DBpedia resources as skos:Concepts?

From: Alexandre Passant <alexandre.passant@deri.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:15:18 +0000
Cc: dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net, SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Message-Id: <6C04F770-FE29-4551-8A07-4ACEF9BC389D@deri.org>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Hi,

On 4 Nov 2009, at 00:56, Richard Cyganiak wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I want to get some broader feedback and opinion on this question.
>
> There is a use case where an external dataset is modelled in SKOS, and
> we want to map it to DBpedia. Something like:
>
> <http://mydataset/433256>
>     a skos:Concept;
>     owl:sameAs <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Michelle_Obama>;
>     .
>
> I've used owl:sameAs here. Now the problem is that my:433256 is a
> skos:Concept, while dbp:Michelle_Obama is a foaf:Person. I wonder
> wether that's a problem. I can't see any immediate contradiction
> arising from that, but I'm uncertain.
>
> Another option would be to use skos:closeMatch or skos:exactMatch, but
> these are intended for use between skos:Concepts, while I'm trying to
> connect a skos:Concept to a foaf:Person.
>
> The main question, I guess, is wether people in the DBpedia project
> would consider the assertion
>
>     <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Michelle_Obama> a skos:Concept .
>
> to be acceptable or erroneous, or wether SKOS folks tell me that
> skos:Concept is obviously disjoint from foaf:Person.

I think that is the question that should be answered here.
The SKOS spec says: "A SKOS concept can be viewed as an idea or  
notion; a unit of thought. However, what constitutes a unit of thought  
is subjective, and this definition is meant to be suggestive, rather  
than restrictive."

So, do the SKOS implementors consider that, while subjective, anything  
can be allowed to go under skos:Concept ?
If not, shouldn't a disjunction be introduced in SKOS to prevent that ?

I find all these SKOS properties more that useful, but that  
subjectivity regarding skos:Concept is imo an issue - I personally  
limit the use of skos:Concept to non-physical objects / abstract  
notions, but since that's subjective, someone else will use it for  
anything, e.g. foaf:Person, and may lead to disagreement between us -  
and related applications.

Thanks,

Alex.


>
> I know that this is a complex issue, so I'm not really looking for a
> "right" or "wrong" answer. I'm more interested in getting all the pros
> and cons and pitfalls and caveats on the table, so please, if you have
> any opinion on the issue, I want to hear it.
>
> I'm cc'ing Pat Hayes, because he said he's interested in that kind of
> question.
>
> All the best and thanks for your time,
> Richard
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Linked Data Technologist  Linked Data Research Centre
> Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI), NUI Galway, Ireland
> http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
> skype:richard.cyganiak
> tel:+353-91-49-5711
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008  
> 30-Day
> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and  
> focus on
> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
> Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
> _______________________________________________
> Dbpedia-discussion mailing list
> Dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion

--
Dr. Alexandre Passant
Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Galway
:me owl:sameAs <http://apassant.net/alex> .
Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 08:15:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:39:04 GMT