- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 10:23:20 -0600
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: John Graybeal <jbgraybeal@mindspring.com>, Neubert Joachim <J.Neubert@zbw.eu>, Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@koeln.de>, SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
On Nov 5, 2009, at 2:23 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > Pat Hayes wrote: >> >> On Nov 5, 2009, at 1:25 PM, John Graybeal wrote: >> [SNIP] >>> Which suggests "owl:sameAs works better for Named Entitites" is >>> not a good practice to follow, doesn't it? >> >> Agree, this dictum makes no sense at all. > Yes, but Named Entities has become a moniker (totally subjective of > course) for People, Places and other so called real things. real things. Hmmm. As opposed, I presume, to not-real things? So is Sherlock Holmes a real thing? He is, after all, a Person. How about the quantity of gravel that I recently ordered to have delivered to my driveway next weekend? Not the gravel, you understand, but the *quantity* of that gravel. Is that a real thing? I have an urgent, real, need to talk about it in communications with others over the Web. > > Thus, owl:sameAs between two Concepts (which have URIs) is > absolutely fine, but this then begs the question: when specifically > does one use "skos:exactMatch" etc? Based on my response John (few > minutes ago), I am assuming that the partitioning of so called Named > Entities and Subject Matter Concepts was the line of delineation > sought in SKOS which is about Subject Matter/Heading style Concept > Schemes? > > Personally, owl:sameAs works absolutely fine for a Person, Document, > or Subject Matter Concept or Heading, as long as its about different > Names for the same Thing (in the eyes of the claim maker). If it is about different names for the same thing, why does that not work everywhere? (It does.) > > Desperately trying to reconcile specs and general language en route > to clarity etc. Me too. BUt Im also trying to preserve the small amount of clarity that we have managed to achieve. Pat > > Kingsley >> >> Pat Hayes >> >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 5, 2009, at 1029, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >>> >>>> Neubert Joachim wrote: >>>>> Hi Simon, >>>>> Sorry for causing some misunderstanding: My point was not that >>>>> you SHOULD use skos:Concept. What I rather wanted to say is that >>>>> it does no harm and that it's already in use for named entites. >>>>> This point arises from the suggestion to use skos:exactMatch/ >>>>> closeMatch. These properties are sub-sub-properties of >>>>> skos:semanticRelation, which entails that subject and object of >>>>> these properties are instances of skos:Concept (since >>>>> skos:Concept are domain and range for skos:semanticRelation). >>>>> The great advantage of skos:exactMatch/closeMatch (over >>>>> owl:sameAs) is that their semantic doesn't smush the resources >>>>> with all their properties (like the administrative properties >>>>> you mentioned). >>>> Joachim, >>>> >>>> What do you mean by "smush" are you referring to the union >>>> expansion that results from combing data from all the data >>>> sources in the owl:sameAs relation? I pose my question with the >>>> skos:exactMatch description page URL [1] for context. I see >>>> Transitivity and Symmetry, which are factors re. decision making >>>> by reasoners re: union expansion based on participants in the >>>> relation. Note, by "union expansion" I mean the union of all data >>>> associated with the data items in the relation. >>>> >>>> Primarily, I just want clarification about "smushing", relative >>>> to the property definition exposed by the skos:exactMatch URI, >>>> more than anything else. Thus, far I've simply assumed that >>>> skos:exactMatch and owl:sameAs have similar implementation >>>> mechanics re. union expansion, but their use targets vary i.e. >>>> skos:exactMatch works better for Concept Schemes (where the world >>>> view assumes Named Entities e.g., "People" aren't Concepts) while >>>> owl:sameAs works better for Named Entities (people, places, and >>>> other typical real more things, so to speak). >>>> >>>> >>>> Links: >>>> >>>> 1. http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/about/html/http/www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core%01exactMatch >>>> >>>> Kingsley >>>>> [SNIP] >>>>> .. >>>>> Cheers, Joachim >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> *Von:* Simon Reinhardt [mailto:simon.reinhardt@koeln.de] >>>>> *Gesendet:* Do 05.11.2009 17:35 >>>>> *An:* Neubert Joachim >>>>> *Cc:* Richard Cyganiak; dbpedia- >>>>> discussion@lists.sourceforge.net; SKOS; Pat Hayes >>>>> *Betreff:* Re: AW: [Dbpedia-discussion] Using DBpedia resources >>>>> as skos:Concepts? >>>>> >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> Neubert Joachim wrote: >>>>> > In my eyes, it's completely ok to use skos:exactMatch or >>>>> skos:closeMatch >>>>> > in a situation like this (I did it myself for the STW >>>>> Thesaurus for >>>>> > Economics mapping to dbpedia). >>>>> > > Thesauri and classifications are not restricted to abstract >>>>> concepts. >>>>> > Some thesauri deal explicitly with individual things, e.g. the >>>>> widely >>>>> > used Getty "Thesaurus of Geographic Names" or "Union List of >>>>> Artist >>>>> > Names". Other thesauri (like STW) have sections (or facets, as >>>>> Leonard >>>>> > put it) on geografic names along with others containing "pure" >>>>> concepts. >>>>> > SKOS, as I understand it, is intended to cover all this and to >>>>> be used >>>>> > beyond strict class hierarchies or class/individual dichotomies. >>>>> >>>>> While I agree that using real-world entities for classification >>>>> is ok I don't think this means you have to declare them to be >>>>> (skos:)concepts. The "has subject" relationship in FRBR [1] for >>>>> example can link a work to a concept but also to places, people, >>>>> events, other works, etc. So in this case you can use real-world >>>>> entities to classify the work (to state what its subjects are) >>>>> but that doesn't mean you declare all those entities to be >>>>> conceptual. >>>>> >>>>> So in my eyes there's still value in keeping (skos:)concepts and >>>>> other things apart. Concepts to me are closer to classes than to >>>>> individuals. And as Dan pointed out concepts have administrative >>>>> data attached - they get created and changed etc. so they're >>>>> basically units of organisation. >>>>> >>>>> I'd therefore prefer using the UMBEL terms or something else for >>>>> aligning real-world entities and concepts. >>>>> >>>>> > By the way, some of the SKOS properties (especially the >>>>> > prefLabel/altLabel/hiddenLabel semantics) can be useful in a >>>>> broad range >>>>> > of applications. Eg. dbpedia itself could be used as a great >>>>> source for >>>>> > synonym candidates by mapping the resources to skos:Concept >>>>> and the >>>>> > labels for dbpedia:redirect resources to skos:altLabel. >>>>> >>>>> Yup, it has a lot of useful annotation terms. They are all >>>>> declared to be annotation properties and deliberately don't have >>>>> skos:Concept in their domain. So you can use them on anything >>>>> which is great! >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Simon >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr_current5.htm#5.2 - >>>>> scroll down to "5.2.3 Subject Relationships" >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/ >>>> ~kidehen >>>> President & CEO OpenLink Software Web: http:// >>>> www.openlinksw.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -------------- >>> I have my new work email address: jgraybeal@ucsd.edu >>> -------------- >>> >>> John Graybeal <mailto:jgraybeal@ucsd.edu> >>> phone: 858-534-2162 >>> Development Manager >>> Ocean Observatories Initiative Cyberinfrastructure Project: http://ci.oceanobservatories.org >>> Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org >>> >>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 >> 3973 >> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office >> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax >> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile >> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > > > Regards, > > Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen > President & CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Friday, 6 November 2009 16:24:09 UTC