W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > November 2006

Re: SKOS use cases format

From: Alistair Miles <a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 14:15:55 +0000
Message-ID: <4565AD1B.7070009@rl.ac.uk>
To: Daniel Rubin <dlrubin@stanford.edu>
CC: Jon Phipps <jphipps@madcreek.com>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Hi Daniel,

Daniel Rubin wrote:
> My question though is what we will do with this--exactly how will 
> responses to these questions drive SKOS requirements? 

My idea was that the vocabulary extracts could act as test cases for 
SKOS - for each extract we could ask, is it possible to create a SKOS 
representation that carries the same information? Or, more tangibly, 
is it possible to create a SKOS representation, such that the original 
extract can be regenerated automatically?

I.e. the vocabulary extracts in the use cases we select would, to a 
first approximation, define the representational *scope* of SKOS. The 
descriptions of the applications then help to refine the 
representational scope, by informing us as to which data are actually 
required to achieve specific functionalities, bearing in mind that the 
ultimate goal of SKOS is to enable (as yet unspecified) functionality.

Does that make sense?

Cheers,

Alistair.

> I was expecting 
> that we collect information about each use case to directly drive 
> requirements of SKOS. So I was expecting each question to somehow hit on 
> what exactly needs to be in SKOS, but it's not completely clear to me in 
> looking at these questions. Maybe something to discuss when we chat on 
> our tcon.
> Daniel
> 
> At 04:26 AM 11/22/2006, Alistair Miles wrote:
> 
>> Hi Antoine, Jon, Daniel,
>>
>> How about this for a call for use cases and use case format ...
>>
>> ---
>>
>>   W3C Semantic Web Deployment Working Group
>>
>>   Call for Use Cases: Simple Knowledge Organisation Systems (SKOS)
>>
>> Are you currently using SKOS, or considering using SKOS in the near 
>> future? If so, please tell us more by filling in the questionnaire 
>> below and sending it to:
>>
>>   public-swd-wg@w3.org
>>
>> The information you provide will be influential in guiding the further 
>> development of SKOS towards W3C Recommendation status.
>>
>> We understand that your time is precious, so please don't feel you 
>> have to answer every question. However, the more information you can 
>> provide, the easier it will be for the Working Group to understand 
>> your requirements. Questions marked with an asterix (*) are more 
>> important.
>>
>> We are particularly interested in use cases describing the use of 
>> controlled structured vocabularies in distributed, metadata-driven 
>> applications. This includes the use of thesauri, classification 
>> schemes, subject heading systems and taxonomies to facilitate 
>> discovery and retrieval of information. This also includes situations 
>> where two or more vocabularies must be "mapped" or "linked" in order 
>> to provide applications using heterogeneous metadata from different 
>> sources.
>>
>> However, we're not ruling anything out at this stage, and the Working 
>> Group will carefully consider all submissions we receive.
>>
>> On behalf of the Working Group, thanks in advance for your time,
>>
>> [names]
>>
>>
>>   SKOS Use Case Questionnaire
>>   ---------------------------
>>
>>   Section 1. Vocabularies
>>
>> In this section we ask you to provide some information about the 
>> vocabulary or vocabularies you would like to be able to represent 
>> using SKOS.
>>
>> [N.B. if your use case describes a generic application of one or more 
>> vocabularies and/or vocabulary mappings, skip straight to section 3.]
>>
>> 1.1. What is the title of the vocabulary(ies)?
>>
>> 1.2. (*) Please provide below some extracts from the vocabulary(ies). 
>> Use the layout or presentation format that you would normally provide 
>> for the users of the vocabulary(ies). Please ensure that the extracts 
>> you provide illustrate all of the features of the vocabulary(ies).
>>
>> 1.3. Describe the structure of the vocabulary(ies). What are the main 
>> building blocks? What types of relationship are used? If you can, 
>> provide examples by referring to the extracts given above.
>>
>> 1.4. Is a machine-readable representation of the vocabulary(ies) 
>> already available (e.g. as an XML document)? If so, we'd be grateful 
>> if you could provide some example data or point us to a hyperlink.
>>
>> 1.5. Are any software applications used to create and/or maintain the 
>> vocabulary(ies)? Are there any features which these software 
>> applications currently lack which are required by your use case?
>>
>> 1.6. If a database application is used to store and/or manage the 
>> vocabulary, how is the database structured?
>>
>> 1.7. Were any published standards, textbooks or written guidelines 
>> followed during the design and construction of the vocabulary? Did you 
>> decide to diverge from their recommendations in any way, and if so, 
>> how and why?
>>
>> 1.8. How are changes to the vocabulary(ies) managed?
>>
>> 1.9. Any additional information, references and/or hyperlinks.
>>
>>
>>   Section 2. Vocabulary Mappings
>>
>> In this section we ask you to provide some information about the 
>> mappings or links between vocabularies you would like to be able to 
>> represent using SKOS.
>>
>> [N.B. if your use case does not involve vocabulary mappings or links 
>> skip straight to section 3.]
>>
>> 2.1. Which vocabularies are you linking/mapping from/to?
>>
>> 2.2. (*) Please provide below some extracts from the mappings or links 
>> between the vocabularies. Use the layout or presentation format that 
>> you would normally provide for the users of the mappings. Please 
>> ensure that the examples you provide illustrate all of the different 
>> types of mapping or link.
>>
>> 2.3. Describe the different types of mapping used, with reference to 
>> the examples given above.
>>
>> 2.4. Any additional information, references and/or hyperlinks.
>>
>>
>>   Section 3. Application
>>
>> In this section we ask you to provide some information about the 
>> application for which the vocabulary(ies) and or vocabulary mappings 
>> are being used.
>>
>> 3.1. What is the title of the application?
>>
>> 3.2. What is the general purpose of the application? What services 
>> does it provide to the end-user?
>>
>> 3.3. (*) Provide some examples of the functionality of the 
>> application. Try to illustrate all of the functionalities in which the 
>> vocabulary(ies) and/or vocabulary mappings are involved.
>>
>> 3.4. What is the architecture of the application? What are the main 
>> components? Are the components and/or the data distributed across a 
>> network, or across the Web?
>>
>> 3.5. Briefly desribe any non-trivial algorithms involved in the 
>> processing of user actions, e.g. query expansion algorithms.
>>
>> 3.6. Is the functionality associated with the controlled 
>> vocabulary(ies) integrated in any way with functionalities provided by 
>> other means? (For example, search and browse using a structured 
>> vocabulary might be integrated with free-text searching and/or some 
>> sort of social bookmarking or recommender system.)
>>
>> 3.7. Any additional information, references and/or hyperlinks.
>>
>> ---
>> End of questionnaire, thanks again.
>>
>>
>>
>> Alistair Miles wrote:
>>> Hi Antoine,
>>> Antoine Isaac wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 2. Independance of vocabulary section with respect to functionality 
>>>> section
>>>> I think that from our SKOS perspective it's important to emphasize 
>>>> on the vocabulary section for use case description. Even if you make 
>>>> the point in [3] that application focus is crucial, SKOS is finally 
>>>> about representing vocabularies. And I believe it's important for 
>>>> use case providers that they can express their needs with respect to 
>>>> this core aspect of their business. And therefore to do it in a 
>>>> section thay can immediately identify.
>>> How about if we divide a use case into two sections, a 
>>> "vocabulary(ies)" section and an "application" section?
>>> The "vocabulary(ies)" section would come first, and be centred around 
>>> extracts from one or more vocabularies.
>>> The "application" section would come second, and provide a 
>>> description of a current or proposed application of the vocabulary(ies).
>>> If a vocab has already been described in another use case, then a 
>>> submission could be "application-only" and refer to the previous use 
>>> case where the vocabulary is described.
>>> We could indicate that we would accept "vocab-only" submissions, but 
>>> encourage submissions that include an application.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3. Link to ISO standards.
>>>> Guus mentioned in [4] that we should link the use case to ISO 
>>>> standards. I think we should encourage the contributors to do so, if 
>>>> their case is already linked to it. I favor the addition of a 
>>>> "(non)compliance with existing encoding/representational standards" 
>>>> item in the vocabulary section. But I think we should mention the 
>>>> fact that filling this item is not mandatory, some vocabularies 
>>>> being developped outside of such considerations.
>>> I think it's important that we encourage submissions to present 
>>> extracts from their vocabulary(ies) according to whatever 
>>> human-readable layout(s)/format(s) they already use within the given 
>>> application (or intend to use within a planned application).
>>> I think it would be good to know if any particular standards or 
>>> guidelines were followed in the construction, maintenance and/or 
>>> presentation of the vocabularies. If a particular standard has been 
>>> followed, we could also ask the submission to highlight if any 
>>> decisions were made to diverge from the standard, why those decisions 
>>> were made, and diverge in what way.
>>> However, note that ISO 2788 doesn't really define a notion of 
>>> "compliance" or "conformance", and that there is plenty of room for 
>>> interpretation within that standard - so asking whether a vocabulary 
>>> "complies" with ISO 2788 may not give us much information.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Alistair.
>>
>> -- 
>> Alistair Miles
>> Research Associate
>> CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
>> Building R1 Room 1.60
>> Fermi Avenue
>> Chilton
>> Didcot
>> Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
>> United Kingdom
>> Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
>> Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
>> Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
> 

-- 
Alistair Miles
Research Associate
CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Building R1 Room 1.60
Fermi Avenue
Chilton
Didcot
Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
United Kingdom
Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
Received on Thursday, 23 November 2006 14:16:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:26 GMT