W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > December 2008

Re: ISSUE-160: Allowing collections in semantic relationships

From: Dupriez Christophe <christophe_dupriez@yahoo.fr>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:21:13 +0000 (GMT)
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, Leonard Will <L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk>
Cc: Aida Slavic <aida@acorweb.net>, Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>, "public-swd-wg@w3.org" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, "public-esw-thes@w3.org" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <786960.6488.qm@web26308.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

Hi (for the last time today) !

Personnaly, I keep thinking that SKOS is needed to support distributed indexing/retrieval applications of the Semantic Web: this is more than publication / exchange.

If we want to interact with CD 25964 (CDxxx and not ISOxxx because it is still a draft, as one wrote it to me), we should at least implement nicely ISO 5964 (which includes ISO 2788).

Pre-coordination is part of ISO 2788 but, like with SKOS, I never implemented it in my past indexing/retrieval system (when you are "Concept" based, you are not easily "Term" based). My experience is that "Term" based systems are better for thesaurus management; "Concept" based systems being closer to indexing/retrieval purposes (targeted to "using" the Thesaurus).

You also have imposed order for a given level (time periods for instance must be in time sequence and not alphabetical): collections do not convince me for this... A rank attribute on the concept simply works.

I mentionned MeSH for its importance: it is a very tough challenge (already with memory usage). But I have to support it (for indexing/retrieval only, not management).

So, I will dig further all the references you provided me, go further with my current SKOS developments. But please don't forget to integrate the experience of the past!

Have a nice evening,

Christophe

--- En date de : Mar 16.12.08, Leonard Will <L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk> a écrit :

> De: Leonard Will <L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk>
> Objet: Re: ISSUE-160: Allowing collections in semantic relationships
> À: "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
> Cc: "Dupriez Christophe" <christophe_dupriez@yahoo.fr>, "Aida Slavic" <aida@acorweb.net>, "Thomas Baker" <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>, "public-swd-wg@w3.org" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, "public-esw-thes@w3.org" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
> Date: Mardi 16 Décembre 2008, 16h51
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 at 15:58:47, Antoine Isaac
> <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote
> > Hello everyone,
> > 
> > Until now, SKOS is meant rather for data publication
> and exchange, and not for data management as a replacement
> of original formats/model/tools [1]. From a formal
> perspective, this makes the requirement to be complete less
> crucial.
> 
> But if it is just for publication and exchange, why bother
> putting it into an RDF framework? There are various simpler
> formats that have been used in the past for the exchange of
> thesaurus data. I thought that the point of RDF was to make
> it amenable to machine reasoning.
> 
> > And we have to deal with the fact that there are
> applications which are designed to consume SKOS data, which
> do not care about all the subtleties. We could have SKOS
> contain 100 model elements: Johan's [2] and
> Leonard's [3] mails, as well as the work in [4]
> perfectly illustrate that this could easily be reached,
> should we only consider ISO and the vocabularies Christophe
> mentioned. But in that case, should every SKOS
> implementation deal with all of them?
> 
> If we accept that SKOS cannot yet provide for all the
> elements of the draft ISO model, it might nevertheless cover
> a subset of them, with the possibility of others being
> developed later as time and resources permit.
> 
> My concern is that at present it contains elements that
> conflict with the model and which will give rise
> misunderstandings and confusion; e.g. allowing node labels
> to be treated as concepts and using "collections"
> in a vague way which does not correspond to either
> "arrays" or "concept groups" in the ISO
> model.
> 
> > That's just not doable to require such a thing
> from implementers. At some point, we therefore would have to
> define a core --and the SWD working group has to do that
> itself, because otherwise future interoperability is ruined.
> And practically, this amounts to having a standard core
> vocabulary extended with application-specific profiles.
> 
> Rather than "application-specific profiles",
> which may diverge and overlap, I would like to see any
> additional work being directed to extensions which form an
> integral part of the format and which are in accordance with
> the data model. Many of the elements of the model are
> optional - they are allowed to have zero occurrences - so if
> not needed for a particular application they do not have to
> be used.
> 
> > Ideally there should be more cooperation between
> ISO25964 and us to create such an extension. But again,
> there is a huge problem of time, I guess :-(
> 
> Indeed! But this is a reason why we should pool our
> resources as far as possible and work in as coordinated a
> way as possible. Many of the people on the ISO 25964 working
> group are also on the SKOS list, so I think that cooperation
> is quite close already, but if there is any other way in
> which we can cooperate that would certainly be welcome. (It
> is unfortunate that ISO procedures don't allow the same
> openness of discussion and sharing of drafts that is
> possible in W3C developments.)
> 
> I would like to see the data model extended to allow for
> faceted classification structures and pre-coordinated
> subject indexing schemes, and we may have to look at these
> when we start work on the draft of part 2 of ISO 25964 next
> year. I do think that we have to get the model right before
> starting to construct a format in XML, RDF or whatever.
> 
> Any ideas on these would be most welcome, though as Antoine
> says a lot of work lies ahead. Can I just remind folk of the
> fact that the Bliss Classification Association has a small
> amount of money that might be made available for a project
> in this area - see:
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2008Oct/0033.html>
> 
> Leonard
> -- Willpower Information       (Partners: Dr Leonard D
> Will, Sheena E Will)
> Information Management Consultants              Tel: +44
> (0)20 8372 0092
> 27 Calshot Way, Enfield, Middlesex EN2 7BQ, UK. Fax: +44
> (0)870 051 7276
> L.Will@Willpowerinfo.co.uk              
> Sheena.Will@Willpowerinfo.co.uk
> ----------------
> <URL:http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/>
> -----------------


      
Received on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 16:24:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:55 UTC