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

SKOS-XL (was RE: SKOS/ synonym provenance (ISSUE-27 AnnotationOnLabel))

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:07:42 -0000
Message-ID: <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D03B3F1F6@exchange11.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: "Jon Phipps" <jphipps@madcreek.com>
Cc: "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, "Daniel Rubin" <rubin@smi.stanford.edu>, <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>

Hi Jon,

You just reminded me, after the amsterdam f2f I wrote up a specification for an *extension module* for SKOS, which I think captures your requirements:

[2] <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/SKOS-XL>

This takes the many-to-one position [3].

My current feeling is *not* to include anything like this in the main SKOS recommendation -- i.e. to limit the SKOS recommendation to *only* dealing with labels as RDF plain literals, which would keep it smaller and simpler. 

I think it would then be quite reasonable to publish something like SKOS-XL as a separate, stand-alone, extension to SKOS, for advanced users. 

The SWDWG could itself publish such an extension, or anyone from the SKOS community could do so. E.g. the FAO used their own extension to represent something like this.

If the SWDWG left it to the community, to help promote discovery and convergence, the SWDWG could set up a wiki page where members of the community could "register" their SKOS extensions ... or we could even use your metadata registry to do that :)

Finally, note that [1] doesn't have any "story" to it -- it's just bare bones. Even as an extension module, [1] would need a story to go with it. To be even considered for inclusion in SKOS proper, it would need a very good story. I haven't got a story at all the moment, and I haven't heard anyone tell one yet either, so my position as stated in the summary of [3] still holds. Have you got a good story? 

Cheers,

Al.

[3] <http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/public/skos/2007/10/f2f/label-relations.html>

--
Alistair Miles
Research Associate
Science and Technology Facilities Council
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Harwell Science and Innovation Campus
Didcot
Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
United Kingdom
Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Phipps [mailto:jonphipps@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jon Phipps
> Sent: 20 November 2007 13:17
> To: Miles, AJ (Alistair)
> Cc: Antoine Isaac; Daniel Rubin; public-swd-wg@w3.org; Alan Ruttenberg
> Subject: Re: SKOS/ synonym provenance (ISSUE-27 AnnotationOnLabel)
> 
> Al,
> 
> I'd like to suggest in the light of further discussion that 
> we reconsider Guus's Simple Extension Proposal[1]. Perhaps if 
> we were able to declare skos:prefLabel as having an 
> owl:equivalentProperty relationship to the rdfs:label 
> property of a skos prefTerm, then this would allow us to 
> effectively join a 'term' graph to a concept by asserting a 
> typed relationship without impacting the current semantics of 
> prefLabel. I think this might be far more effective than 
> simply allowing a resource to be the object of a skos:label property.
> 
> I believe that Antoine had drawn this pattern on a notepad at 
> the f2f but it didn't provoke much discussion. As I recall 
> the main objections to Guus's proposal had to do with 
> problems with the overloading of 'term' and the fact that 
> it's subject to rather broad interpretation. Perhaps rather 
> than simply rejecting the proposal, we could see if we can't 
> adjust the naming to be more acceptable wrt to the apparent 
> ambiguity of the term 'term' -- prefLexicalTerm perhaps.
> 
> Personally I'm far more comfortable allowing the joining of a 
> term to a concept to both maintain and allow relationships 
> between terms that can't be effectively expressed with the 
> more generalizable conceptual relationships supported by skos 
> than I am with the currently supported solution. It seems to 
> me that there are far too many instances where publishing a 
> concept using skos involves enough of a loss of useful data 
> that it would present a barrier to acceptance of skos.
> 
> --Jon
> 
> [1] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007May/0057.html
> 
> On Nov 20, 2007, at 7:40 AM, Miles, AJ ((Alistair)) wrote:
> 
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 14:07:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:30 GMT