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

Re: [SKOS comment] Re: Call for Comments: SKOS Primer: W3C Working Draft 21 February 2008

From: Alasdair J G Gray <agray@dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:48:48 +0000
Message-ID: <47D65580.1050303@dcs.gla.ac.uk>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
CC: Azamat <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

With regard to section 4, I would argue that the section on Collections 
is vital in the primer as these are features that exist in many 
vocabularies and as such are not necessarily an advanced feature.


Antoine Isaac wrote:
> Dear Azamat,
>> I had this message several times. To ignore it might look impolite.
> So would be ignoring your answer. However, to optimize the chances it 
> gets a proper answer, I forward it to the two lists where people can 
> react to it.
> Please be aware that SKOS is mainly intended at practitioners in 
> search of a standard solution to express different kind of controlled 
> vocabularies in the Semantic Web. And practitioners are also involved 
> in its design.
> It is therefore no surprise that some parallels are drawn and some 
> generalizations made, which do not fit the views of semanticists on 
> the subject (which are in any case, I think, too many to be seamlessly 
> reconciled, as your wikipedia quotations highlight it)
> Notice in this respect that the problem originates in the scope of 
> SKOS itself: the things that we aim at representing are very diverse: 
> some classification schemes use "codes" and refer to "classes", 
> thesauri have "terms" and so on.
> Yet, it happens, looking at the way these things are used now and will 
> be in the near future (with more and more links established between 
> them), that (i) some standardisation has to take place, and that (ii) 
> this standardisation can be actually grounded on some observed 
> practical similarities (http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-ucr/)
> Our aim is not to replace the original objects in their initial 
> context of use, but to allow to port them to a shared space, based on 
> a simplified model, enabling wider re-use and better interoperability.
> This space is indeed new, and would call for new concepts 
> (constructs?) and names: but how to grasp something like a 
> "concept-or-term-or-keyword-or-class-or-tag-or-heading"?
> This of course shall not allow us to make too broad assumptions or too 
> loose wordings, and your mail may prove useful in this respect. But I 
> don't expect that the gain with respect to application 
> interoperability can be achieved without paying some sort of price 
> with respect to theoretical purity.
> Best regards
> Antoine
>> Some brief comments on two basic assumptions.
>> I.  ''SKOS  Simple Knowledge Organisation System  provides a model 
>> for expressing the basic structure and content of concept schemes 
>> such as thesauri, classification schemes, subject heading lists, 
>> taxonomies, folksonomies, and other types of controlled vocabulary.''
>> Here is a confusion of different entities: constructs and words 
>> (terms). Besides, it is the domain of global ontology to cover all 
>> sorts of controlled vocabulary. No need to invent the SKOS.
>> II. ''The fundamental element of the SKOS vocabulary is the concept. 
>> Concepts denote ideas or meanings that are the units of thought 
>> [Willpower Glossary] which underly the KOSs used in a number of 
>> applications [SKOS-UCR]. As such, concepts exist in the mind as 
>> abstract entities which are independent of the terms used to label 
>> them.''
>> Here is a bad misunderstanding of the nature of semantics and its 
>> basic notions; namely:
>> 1. Vocabulary is a listing of words or the system of symbols and 
>> techniques, and hardly it is a conceptual system.
>> 2. No ''concepts denote ideas or meanings''. There is general 
>> semantic rule: some symbols (signs) designate, while all constructs 
>> mean something in the world. Then, symbols (or signs) designate 
>> constructs (ideas, concepts, propositions, or theories), whereas the 
>> constructs mean real things. So the ideas are expressed by words, 
>> which signify the real entities to be named. Thus the meanings of 
>> ideas are signified by words, not by concepts. We say significance of 
>> the symbol and the meaning of the construct, what might be equivalent.
>> 3. There are words (signs, symbols, terms, codes) which signify only 
>> things in the world or only the ideas in the mind or both ideas and 
>> things.
>> 4. Concept is the unit construct, and the construct covers concept 
>> (individual, class, relation), proposition, context, and theory.
>> Summing up:
>> If somebody is striving for semantic web, he must have a good 
>> learning about the nature of meaning 
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_%28linguistic%29 ) and the 
>> modes of signification ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign)determined 
>> by the kinds of things signified and the kinds of things which 
>> signify (signs, symbols, codes, terms, words).
>> azamat abdoullaev
>> more on semantics see
>> http://www.igi-pub.com/books/details.asp?id=7641
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
>> To: <semantic-web@w3.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 12:02 AM
>> Subject: Call for Comments: SKOS Primer: W3C Working Draft 21 
>> February 2008

Dr Alasdair J G Gray

Explicator project 

Office: F161
Tel: 	+44 141 330 6292

Postal: Computing Science,
	17 Lilybank Gardens,
	University of Glasgow,
	G12 8QQ, UK.
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 09:49:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:52 UTC