W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lld@w3.org > December 2010

RE: SemWeb terminology page

From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 11:34:52 -0500
Message-ID: <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF590A9A35A6@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, "public-lld" <public-lld@w3.org>
As an informal term, I don't think "controlled vocabulary" is that bad
from a semantic web perspective. We just have to be careful with the
definition.

According to the OWL Web Ontology Language Guide:

"In OWL the term ontology has been broadened to include instance data."
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#owl_Ontology> 

In other words, the semantic web world shouldn't balk at the informal
notion of "controlled vocabulary" as long as they are represented based
on OWL (e.g. SKOS).

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Antoine Isaac
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 3:52 AM
> To: public-lld
> Subject: Re: SemWeb terminology page
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> Perhaps a bit of explanation on what we discussed in Cologne :
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2010Dec/0005.html
> 
> For both groups we felt that "vocabulary" was not a good match. In the
> semantic web terminology we have "RDF vocabularies" which are the sets
> of classes and properties used to create data [1]. This would clash
> with using "vocabulary" for the other group: a "controlled vocabulary"
> represented in RDF (using SKOS for example) is not an RDF vocabulary.
> 
> We explored using qualifiers to mitigate that, but while "value" was
> perhaps the best fit with "vocabulary" for the first group, we felt it
> still had important problems. One may expect to find string values
> (literal) in "value vocabularies", while what is expected in the LLD
> environment would stuff that in RDF would be represented as "fully-
> fledged" resources.
> 
> Further, in the LLD environment a lot of things may appear in group 1:
> thesauri, classifications, but also authority lists for persons,
> places, events, or even objects. Also, stuff like the entire dbPedia
> set, or a list of foaf:Persons. It may be far-stretched to use
> "vocabulary" for the latter. Which is why we came with the quite
> flexible "dataset", preferably combined with a qualifier like
> "reference" or "organized" (we did not have any preference though--
> both?).
> 
> In fact, as was observed, belonging to group 1 is truly a matter of
> *function*, how that stuff is being used. It is the fact that someone
> or some organization says: "here's a set of resources, I've curated it
> and believe it is fit for re-use". And conversely, the fact that
others
> start re-use it in their data.
> 
> 
> Note that there is no strict disjointness between the two groups, as
> Marcia wrote it. And this matches well the flexibility of "dataset".
An
> the classes and properties in an RDF ontology (that is, an "RDF
> vocabulary" ;-) ) may be used as a KOS for creating descriptions, if
> some application needs it.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Antoine
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/ says: "This specification
> describes how to use RDF to describe RDF vocabularies."
> 
> 
> > I have to say that I think that 'value vocabulary' and 'element
> vocabulary' make the most sense for me.  As soon as we start doing
> things like 'library vocabulary' and 'semantic web vocabulary' we
start
> defining what we're talking about in terms of different communities of
> practice rather than function, and it all starts looking like the US
> Congress (not a good thing, for those of you who don't have to watch
it
> up close).
> >
> > Diane
> >
> > On 12/2/10 9:37 PM, Thomas Baker wrote:
> >> Hi Jodi,
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 10:13:47PM +0000, Jodi Schneider wrote:
> >>> The use of 'vocabulary' with different modifiers seems
> >>> doomed to fail. That's because, for me, I find it difficult
> >>> to mentally distinguish 'Value vocabulary' and 'element
> >>> vocabulary'. The idea of a 'library vocabulary' and 'semantic
> >>> web vocabulary' is just barely understandable enough for me
> >>> to handle.
> >> I'm not sure I follow. "Semantic Web vocabulary" I can
> >> understand, but is the use of "vocabulary" uniform enough
> >> in the library world for it to make sense to speak of a
> >> "library vocabulary"?
> >>
> >>> I'd be very, very happy if someone could propose an
> >>> alternative which didn't use 'vocabulary' twice. I fear
> >>> abbreviation as well as the assumption that, oh, yeah, we know
> >>> what vocabularies are (with different resultant assumptions
> >>> depending on one's background).
> >> "Metadata element set" has been proposed as an equivalent
> >> to "element vocabulary". I would argue, however, that
> >> speaking of "element vocabularies" and "value vocabularies"
> >> usefully underlines the fact that in the Linked Data context,
> >> the two types are comparable as Semantic Web (or RDF)
> >> "vocabularies".
> >>
> >> I'm convinced that there are no terms we could come up with
> >> that would not evoke the wrong associations for _someone_.
> >> This is an exercise in coming up with terms that roughly evoke
> >> the right sorts of things for as many people as possible.
> >> Whatever terms we choose, we then have to define them clearly
> >> and concisely, up-front -- as in "when we say 'vocabulary',
> >> we mean...".
> >>
> >> But I hear your strong view on this and would be interested
> >> to know if others share the fear that using "vocabulary" in
> >> this broader sense would simply prove to be too confusing to
> >> too many people.
> >>
> >> Tom
> >>
> >
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 3 December 2010 16:35:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 3 December 2010 16:35:44 GMT