Re: ADMS RDF

That makes sense, yes (defining a range). OK, I'll work on that. It 
feels like a good use of Occam's Razor, always the best tool in the box.

Thanks

Phil.

On 03/08/2012 17:07, Dave Reynolds wrote:
> Hi Phil,
>
> On 03/08/12 16:10, Phil Archer wrote:
>> Pls see below
>>
>> On 28/06/2012 16:10, Dave Reynolds wrote:
>>> Hi Phil,
>>>
>>> Follow up from GLD call ... glancing at the ADMS document I noticed some
>>> oddities that are reflected in the RDF [1].
>>>
>>> Specifically, there are a number entities that look like aliases for
>>> skos:Concept. For example:
>>>
>>> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&skos;Concept">
>>>      <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">Asset Type</rdfs:label>
>>>      <rdfs:comment xml:lang="en" rdf:parseType="Literal">The
>>> skos:Concept class fully represents the ADMS class of Asset Type (see
>>> section on the <xh:a xh:href="#Code">Code</xh:a> datatype for
>>> details).</rdfs:comment>
>>>      <vann:usageNote xml:lang="en">Used in ADMS to provide a
>>> classification of a Semantic Asset according to a controlled vocabulary,
>>> e.g. code list, metadata schema.</vann:usageNote>
>>>      <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="&skosDoc;" />
>>>      <dcterms:identifier>skos:Concept</dcterms:identifier>
>>>    </rdf:Description>
>>>
>>> With similar declarations for: "Code", "Interoperability Level",
>>> "Representation Technique" and "Status".
>>>
>>> I suspect this is a slip and that the intention was to introduce actual
>>> classes which would be sub-class (or equivalent-class) to skos:Concept.
>>>
>>> [If it's not a slip then this is a modelling style which I would prefer
>>> us to avoid. It means that we are assigning alternative labels to
>>> skos:Concept itself - which is problematic both technically and
>>> socially.]
>>
>> Thanks Dave,
>>
>> It's taken me too long to get to this but, well, I have now.
>>
>> It's a slip and it's not a slip - more of a compromise I'm very happy to
>> change because I don't like it for all the reasons you give.
>>
>> I raised the issue back in November [1] (actually, I swear I've raised
>> it more than once. I remember getting a reply from someone at Top
>> Quadrant I hadn't heard of but I can't find it). The basic problem is
>> that we're defining a vocabulary that uses other people's terms but that
>> doesn't mean we don't have something to say about them.
>>
>> What I want to say here is: the way to encode the ADMS Asset Type is to
>> use a skos:Concept. In his reply to my question, Jeremy said I could use
>> sub properties/classes. Well, yes, I know that, but I really don't want
>> to - I want to say *use skos:Concept*. JJC then said that if people
>> didn't like whatever new labels were added, they didn't have to use
>> them, which is true of course. The e-mail I can't find from another TQ
>> person made the same point, i.e. you can say what you like and other
>> people decide whether to take any notice. With this in mind I was
>> slightly more ready to add new labels to existing classes although in my
>> sign off from that thread [2] I expressed exactly the worry as you end
>> with in almost the same terms ("...DCAT includes lots of Dublin Core
>> elements so I'm anxious to do this in a way that is semantically and
>> socially right.")
>
> So I agree with JJC that it is legal to add your own labels to other
> people's terms. However, it is a potential mild barrier to uptake that
> might be better avoided if it can.
>
> In particular, in this case your aliases are rather narrow. So anyone
> using skos:Concept seeing a label for it such as "Interoperability
> Level" is likely to be confused. It only makes sense in the context of
> ADMS and so is really a property of ADMS not of skos.
>
> To say "use skos:Concept" here then you do that through rdfs:range
> statements as you have done (or owl:Restrictions). I don't see you need
> anything else.
>
>> But, if it is not right to add new labels to existing terms - and I
>> agree entirely, I don't think it is - how can we proceed?
>
> Just use the range declarations and stop there. You already have things
> like:
>
> adms:interoperabilityLevel
>     rdfs:label "interoperability level"@en;
>     rdfs:comment "Links a resource to its adms:InteroperabilityLevel.
>                  Since this is encoded using skos:Concept, that is the
>                  defined range for this property."@en;
>     rdfs:range skos:Concept .
>
> That seems sufficient to me. Though I would rephrase it without the
> mention of the non-existent curie
>
>
> adms:interoperabilityLevel
>     rdfs:label "interoperability level"@en;
>     rdfs:comment "Links a resource to its Interoperability Level, which
>                   should be encoded using skos:Concept."@en;
>     rdfs:range skos:Concept .
>
>> I haven't
>> updated the schema in w3.org space yet but I have prepared a version
>> that I hope is better in this regard - although it still doesn't feel
>> right [3]. The key bit is:
>>
>> <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#Concept>
>>    rdfs:label "Concept"@en ;
>>    rdfs:comment """The skos:Concept class fully represents the following
>> ADMS classes:
>>     - Asset Type
>>     - Code
>>     - Interoperability Level
>>     - Representation Technique
>>     - Status
>> In each case, the use of a Concept from a suitable Concept Scheme will
>> provide a suitable value from a controlled vocabulary. In the particular
>> case of the ADMS data type of Code, the intention is that the
>> skos:Concept class be used as follows:
>>   - for the content property, use skos:notation
>>   - the ADMS list property will be taken care of by means of the
>> skos:inScheme property;
>>   - the list agency property is likely to be applied to the scheme as a
>> whole for which dcterms:creator is appropriate;
>>   - the list version property can be fulfilled using schema:version.""" ;
>>    rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/> ;
>>    dcterms:identifier skos:Concept .
>
> So I won't formally object to that but it seems unnecessary and slightly
> confusing.
>
> That makes more sense to me as part of the documentation of ADMS. For
> example it could be a comment on the Ontology resource to explain how
> the mapping from the ADMS abstract model has been done in the RDF. Or it
> could be in some separate documentation which is linked to the ADMS
> Ontology resource via rdfs:seeAlso or similar.
>
> It's not really a comment on skos:Concept.
>
> Dave
>
>
>

-- 


Phil Archer
W3C eGovernment
http://www.w3.org/egov/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1

Received on Friday, 3 August 2012 16:34:01 UTC