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

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

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 02:04:32 -0500
Message-Id: <95EE1497-2121-4762-A22F-D1C2A194C6A8@gmail.com>
Cc: "Jon Phipps" <jphipps@madcreek.com>, "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, "Daniel Rubin" <rubin@smi.stanford.edu>, <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
To: "Miles, AJ ((Alistair))" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>

This seems reasonable. It doesn't matter much to me whether it is in  
SKOS proper or SKOS-XL, as long as SKOS-XL is widely adopted by  
people with similar requirements.

This is modulo ensuring that the scheme can be represented reasonably  
in OWL1.1, including entailments.

-Alan

On Nov 20, 2007, at 9:07 AM, Miles, AJ ((Alistair)) wrote:

> 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 Wednesday, 21 November 2007 07:19:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:51 UTC