W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > August 2007

Re: "Drawing the Pictures"

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 21:39:45 +0200
Message-ID: <46BF6201.3000704@few.vu.nl>
To: jphipps@madcreek.com
CC: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>, SWD Working SWD <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Hello Jon,

I'm not fond of the 100% text approach, even if the Zthes you cite the 
model is simple enough.

If we are to get inspiration from an existing modelling work (from the 
points of view of both form and content), I would suggest BS-8723:
- the model itself is recent
- there is some UML modelling hanging around
- Alistair is already involved I think
- they seem to be really eager to collaborate with us, cf [1] (and I do 
trust Stella and other BS-8723 people to have very interesting views on 
the domain ;-)

Additionally, it could give some material for a candidate requirement on 
"compatibility with BS-8723". We've got in [2] requirements with a lot 
of thesaurus standards, I think Stella's demand at the end of [1] is 
quite reasonable...

Of course this would more time-consuming than just creating graphs 
ourselves. Perhaps one or two people from the WG could be given the 
responsability, for the next F2F, to read the material at BS-8723, and 
prepare some pictures we could discuss then.



[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jul/0038.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-ucr/#Candidate

> Maybe even something textual like this?
> "The Zthes abstract model for thesaurus representation, version 1.0"
> http://zthes.z3950.org/model/zthes-model-1.0.html
> --Jon
> Sean Bechhofer wrote:
>> In the telecon yesterday, I raised the question of whether we should
>> be providing some kind of metamodel for SKOS. Just to clarify, I'm not
>> necessarily calling for a formalised model with mapping rules and
>> translations into the underlying RDF (as for example, we have with
>> OWL). Rather, I was thinking of something (could be UML diagrams,
>> could be simply blobs and lines) that tries to capture some of our
>> underlying intuitions about the SKOS model. I think Elisa captured
>> what I meant well when she said "drawing the pictures".
>> I believe that would then help in pinning down what we mean by
>> 'containment', 'aggregation' etc. For example, do we consider the
>> relationships between concepts to be part of a scheme? Do we consider
>> the concepts to be part of the scheme? Do we consider the
>> relationships of a concept to be somehow part of the concept? Can
>> concepts "exist" independently of a scheme? In my personal experience
>> with OWL (and your mileage may of course, vary), thinking about things
>> at a higher level of abstraction than the RDF triple structure made it
>> easier to see what was going on and how things fit together.
>> This certainly doesn't have to be normative, and in fact may not even
>> need to form part of our final document set. I think it would benefit
>> the process though. This would perhaps best be something to do in a
>> F2F context (as I think was also mooted).
>>     Sean
>> -- 
>> Sean Bechhofer
>> School of Computer Science
>> University of Manchester
>> sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk
>> http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer
Received on Sunday, 12 August 2007 19:44:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:50 UTC