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

Re: SemWeb terminology page

From: Manue <manue@figoblog.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 09:42:28 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTikQY_-gtck_ZLZEnN4hqZDMG-Kf-PXZVQyxfig-@mail.gmail.com>
To: "ZENG, MARCIA" <mzeng@kent.edu>
Cc: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, "Haffner, Alexander" <A.Haffner@d-nb.de>, public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
Coming back on this,

I don't like "metadata elements set", for the reasons mentionned
earlier in this thread : 'elements' have another meaning in XML.
I'm not sure that 'elements set' is that clear either, even if it's
been used by DC.

Plus, I like the idea of "vocabulary" because it emphasizes the
possibility of a "pick-and-choose" approach.

Why not "metadata vocabularies" ?

Emmanuelle

PS: I'm not arguing on "value vocabularies", which seems clear enough.

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 5:23 PM, ZENG, MARCIA <mzeng@kent.edu> wrote:
> +1 Mark.
> “Value vocabularies” is understandable, although it may limit to those only
> to be used as ‘values’.  (There are other functions a KOS can perform).
> ‘Properties’ has different meanings in different communities.  It could be
> confusing when it is not used with context. It may also mislead when mapping
> different types of resources.  ‘Metadata element set’  is a term widely
> accepted and has clear meaning.  What people want to use the elements for
> depend on the implementations.
> Marcia
>
> On 11/2/10 12:08 PM, "Mark van Assem" <mark@cs.vu.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
> So we should choose two different terms and in our report explain those
> terms in relation to terms that may be more familiar to specific parts
> of our audience.
>
> "Value vocabularies" seems to be working for most.
>
> A reason not to choose "properties" as you suggest is that those are RDF
> centric terms, so none of our audience will get it immediately, while
> choosing e.g. metadata element set has the advantage that some in the
> audience will immediately get it.
>
> Mark
>
> On 02/11/2010 16:49, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> The term "vocabularies" gets used for a lot of different things in
>> semantic web discussions. However, as this thread shows, there isn't an
>> obvious set of clear terms to use in its place.
>>
>> Depending on who you are talking to, the things that DCMI calls "value
>> vocabularies" are "controlled lists of terms" or "authority lists" or
>> "pick lists." Although 'value vocabulary' is a clear distinction to
>> adherents of DCAM, I have not heard that phrase used by any other
>> communities. When I talk to librarians, I often use the phrase
>> "controlled list" in my explanation. It would be good to get the 'value
>> vocabulary' concept disseminated broadly.
>>
>> The analogy to properties is "data elements" in the traditional IT
>> world. In fact, the MARC documentation refers to the fields and
>> subfields as data elements. For that reason, "metadata element" and
>> "metadata element set" seem to resonate with folks who are already
>> somewhat familiar with a data processing model. However, I worry that
>> people will assume that a property is the same as a data element.
>>
>> The terms "property," "value" and "statement" have no meaning for folks
>> in the library world. These are new concepts, and should be introduced
>> as representing a new way of creating and using metadata. I think it is
>> legitimate to say that MARC does not have properties (in the semweb
>> sense), and there are no statements in a MARC record as it is coded
>> today. The advantage here is that librarians can move to new concepts
>> and a new vocabulary about those concepts, which I think will help keep
>> them from dragging the old ideas along with them into the semantic web..
>>
>> Therefore (after all of that), I would vote for using 'value
>> vocabularies' and 'properties' ('set of properties' for something like
>> foaf or dcterms?), but explain them in terms of controlled lists and
>> data elements, emphasizing the differences.
>>
>> Yep, easier said than done.
>>
>> kc
>>
>> Quoting Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>:
>>
>>>
>>>> Generally the whole situation is a mess, and can only be understood
>>>> sociologically / historically. Asking whether eg. 'schemas' and
>>>> 'ontologies' are the same or different doesn't get us very far.. Asking
>>>> about which communities used which terms maybe gets us a bit
>>>> further...
>>>
>>> Ok, If the question is about communities we're communicating with, then
>>>
>>> "element set" would probably work here
>>>
>>> (come to think of it, I used "metadata element set" to refer to DC etc.
>>> in my thesis, and later link that to the term "schemas" to denote how
>>> DC looks like in RDF, which then become "metadata element schemas"
>>>
>>>
>>> I also like "value vocabulary" because it sort of indicates that they
>>> go into the object part ("value") of a triple.
>>>
>>>> I quite like 'vocabulary' as it covers schema, ontology, metadata set,
>>>> and also SKOS/thesaurus stuff too.
>>>
>>> Yes, but we need separate terms for the things "vocabulary" may
>>> encompass. In other words it's either too broad or means different
>>> things to different people.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mark van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
>>> http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
>   Mark van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
>             http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2010 08:43:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 10 November 2010 08:43:03 GMT