Re: SemWeb terminology page

I agree with what Tom summarized.  It is based on the usage of those vocabularies we put them into Group 1 and 2, not on their encoding format/representation in our case of LLD requirements doc.  In other cases, some vocabularies may belong to more than one group, depending on how and where they are used. For example, for bibo we use it to prepared bibliographical data like using DCterms, that is Group 2. However if from library and information science field point of view, it is a kind of KOS that models the a subject domain, similar to the function of Dewey Decimal Classification's certain schedule and classes, and can be used as a Group 1 vocabulary.
The importance is to give a clear background in the LLD XG documentation when the vocabularies are mentioned.
Marcia

On Dec 3, 2010, at 5:28, "Thomas Baker" <tbaker@tbaker.de> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 09:25:05PM -0500, Jeff Young wrote:
>> Are hindsight arguments allowed? ;-)
>> 
>> I suspect that DCMI Types would be better modeled as OWL Classes. This
>> would put them in group 2.
> 
> Hang on...
> 
> Group 1 is supposed to have things like LCSH, AAT, WordNet...
> I'd call these "value vocabularies" because its members are
> typically used as values.
> 
> Group 2 is supposed to have things like FOAF, BIBO, DC, even
> SKOS and FRBR (seen as vocabularies).  I'd call these "element
> vocabularies" because they are composed largely of properties,
> which are typically used as predicates.
> 
> Admittedly it's a fudge, but so are the alternatives.
> In making this distinction, the intention is not to propose
> a watertight typology, based on sound, consistent modeling
> distinctions.  Rather, the idea is to group vocabularies
> pragmatically, according to their typical use, in a way that
> will make sense to the intended audience but without actually
> offending the ontological sensibilities of experts.
> 
> I'm not getting how changing the the DCMI Type Vocabulary
> from a set of RDF classes to a set of OWL classes would make
> it move from Group 1 to Group 2.
> 
> Tom
> 
> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Thomas Baker [mailto:thomasbaker49@googlemail.com] On Behalf Of
>>> Thomas Baker
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 9:19 PM
>>> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
>>> Cc: Jodi Schneider; Tillett, Barbara; Mark van Assem; public-lld
>>> Subject: Re: SemWeb terminology page
>>> 
>>> Hi Jeff,
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 09:06:28PM -0500, Jeff Young wrote:
>>>> IMO, "value vocabulary"/"SKOS Vocabulary"/etc. ("group 1") is an
>>> alias
>>>> for skos:ConceptScheme.
>>> 
>>> Does that definition perhaps go too far?  The DCMI Type
>>> Vocabulary [1] is a set of RDF classes, and I would call that a
>>> "value vocabulary".
>>> 
>>> Tom
>>> 
>>> [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#H7
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
>>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
> 
>

Received on Friday, 3 December 2010 06:45:19 UTC