W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > February 2018

Re: skos-thes vs xkos, which one to choose?

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 13:30:47 +0100
To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <699b7181-95d7-7de6-435e-8916946e05ef@few.vu.nl>
Hi,

Thomas is right. At least there could be some equivalences added to XKOS, which would lessen Armando's worry, at least on the theoretical side.
But our discussion at https://github.com/linked-statistics/xkos/issues/32 has peppered out. I am going to ping them, in order to know whether we can be 100% sure the mapping could be added - at least that there is no opposition to it.

Best,

Antoine

On 19/02/18 12:13, Thomas Francart wrote:
> Hello
> 
> 2018-02-18 23:59 GMT+01:00 Armando Stellato <stellato@uniroma2.it <mailto:stellato@uniroma2.it>>:
> 
>     Hi,____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     In deciding how to map some relations as subproperties of skos:broader (such as the partOf relation), I considered the following alternatives:____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>       * http://purl.org/iso25964/skos-thes <http://purl.org/iso25964/skos-thes>____
>       * http://www.ddialliance.org/Specification/RDF/XKOS <http://www.ddialliance.org/Specification/RDF/XKOS>____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     I think both of them do not need any introduction to any of you. ____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     Being a mapping of ISO 25964 skos-thes has met more diffusion, though its link is now dead, while xkos has gone through public review last year and there seems to be a very updated new draft from yesterday.
> 
> 
> On the dead link of skos-thes, see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2017Oct/0003.html. Let me revive this issue on the mailing-list.
> Don't be confused with the date you see at the top of the "latest draft" link, which is dynamically generated with date at which you request the document. The XKOS specs have not changed for 2 years (see the repository content : https://github.com/linked-statistics/xkos).
> 
>     ____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     The vocabularies have only a partial overlap, I’m however curious if there’s any general convergence on which property to choose for very common relations such as: isPartOf/hasPart or generic/specialize which are available in both vocabularies.
> 
> 
> I'm sticking with skos-thes.
> XKOS originates from and is well adapted for _statistical classifications_, and is not (quite) a general purpose extension of SKOS.
> There was a comment on XKOS on exactly this question of reusong or mapping to skos-thes for subproperties of broader/narrower : https://github.com/linked-statistics/xkos/issues/32.
> 
> Best Regards
> Thomas
> 
>     ____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     Thanks for any help/opinion!____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     Armando____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     --------------------------------------------------____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     Armando Stellato, PhD____
> 
>     ART Research Group,____
> 
>     Dept. of Enterprise Engineering____
> 
>     University of Roma, Tor Vergata____
> 
>     Via del Politecnico 1 00133 ROMA (ITALY <https://maps.google.com/?q=Via+del+Politecnico+1+00133+ROMA+(ITALY&entry=gmail&source=g>)____
> 
>     tel: +39 06 7259 7330 <tel:+39%2006%207259%207330> (office, room A1-14);____
> 
>     +39 06 7259 7332 <tel:+39%2006%207259%207332> (lab)____
> 
>     e_mail: stellato@uniroma2.it <mailto:stellato@uniroma2.it>____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     --------------------------------------------------____
> 
>     __ __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> *
> *
> *Thomas Francart* -*SPARNA*
> Web de _données_ | Architecture de l'_information_ | Accès aux _connaissances_
> blog : blog.sparna.fr <http://blog.sparna.fr>, site : sparna.fr <http://sparna.fr>, linkedin : fr.linkedin.com/in/thomasfrancart <https://fr.linkedin.com/in/thomasfrancart>
> tel :  +33 (0)6.71.11.25.97, skype : francartthomas
Received on Monday, 19 February 2018 12:31:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 19 February 2018 12:31:42 UTC