Re: [SKOS] Re: Comments on "SKOS: requirements for standardization"

Antoine,


Antoine Isaac  wrote on 28/11/06 10:13:

> Hi Bernard,
> 
>> Antoine
>>
>> see comments in line.
>>
>> Antoine Isaac  wrote on 19/11/06 21:10:
>>
>>> Hi Bernard,
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> some comments on
>>>> http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/public/skos/press/dc2006/camera-ready-paper.pdf 
>>>>
>>>>
<snip/>
> 
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> '3.  Anticipated Software Architecture'
>>>> This section seems to omit what seems to me will be a requirement: 
>>>> the transformation of an existing taxonomy/ontology into a SKOS 
>>>> taxonomy. The transformation may be batch or dynamic, but I believe 
>>>> will be necessary.
>>>>
>>> I think you're right about the need for a conversion. However, I'm 
>>> not sure this has repercussions on SKOS requirements. Could you be 
>>> more precise about which kind of req you envisioned ?
>>
>>
>>
>> OK, let me give you a couple of concrete examples:
>> 1) The Gene Ontology. There's a version of the Gene Ontology expressed 
>> in OWL. I'd like a version in SKOS. I want a way of 
>> transforming/transcoding GO-OWL so that I can use it in both of my use 
>> cases. I have no control over GO-OWL, and have no idea how often it 
>> changes, so I'd like the transcoding to be dynamic, such that when I 
>> ask a service for a SKOS version of GO, it transcodes the current 
>> version into SKOS for me.
>>
>> 2) The Sun Unified Product Taxonomy (UPT). The UPT is expressed in 
>> RDFS, and I'd like a version in SKOS (for use in both use cases). 
>> However, Sun has control over the UPT and can produce a parallel 
>> version in SKOS whenever the RDFS version changes. So, in this case 
>> all that's required is a batch conversion.
> 
> 
> OK, this is very clear to me. I however wonder wether this will 
> translate into specific requirements for SKOS. For me that would rather 
> concern the features of the producing SKOS (unless you say that these 
> services would ideally be relying on technologies such as XML and RDF, 
> which gives a motivation for SKOS being encoded in such languages)
> 
> Anyway, the situation you mention is very interesting to mention in your 
> use case I think. Which makes me wonder wether you would find some 
> location in our format to put it in. Do you think point 1.4 in the 
> Application would be fitting, at least for the (more interesting) case 1?

Possibly. The requirements document requests examples of existing use 
cases that motivate the development of SKOS, not for examples of where 
SKOS is currently used. Perhaps it's worth considering asking if/how 
respondents have considered using SKOS to augment/substitute their 
current vocabularies?

regards

Bernard

Received on Wednesday, 29 November 2006 09:55:13 UTC