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

ISSUE-164 draft response

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 18:18:26 +0200
Message-ID: <48E79752.7030409@few.vu.nl>
To: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Hi all,

Here's a draft response to Doug on [ISSUE-163], let me know what you 
think. Note *this is just a draft, not the actual response* -- I'll wait 
for feedback from the WG before replying formally to Doug. (Doug if 
you're lurking on this list feel free to post yourthoughts at any time.)

Antoine

Dear Doug,

Thank you for your comment in [1], which is copied at the end of this mail.

Your remark on the respective emphasis given to KOS extension and KOS 
mapping is plain right. I think the WG indeed foresees more use cases 
for mapping than for extension, as it appears in the SKOS Use Cases and 
Requirements document [2].
Accordingly, your suggestion to change the order of the respective 
sections in the Primer will be implemented.
Further, we plan to add the two following scoping sentences to these 
sections.
For KOS mapping:
[
Mapping is expected to be crucial for applications that use several KOSs 
at a same time, where these KOSs have overlapping scopes and need to be 
semantically reconciled -- examples of such application can be found in 
the SKOS Use cases and Requirements document 
(http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-ucr/#R-ConceptualMappingLinks). A key feature 
of mapping is the possibility to state that two concepts from different 
schemes have comparable meanings, and to precise how these meanings 
compare, even though they come from different contexts and possibly 
adhere to different modelling principles.
]
For KOS extension:
[
Extension of a KOS can be especially useful when its designers (or third 
party KOS publishers) want to achieve a better coverage of a 
(sub-)domain, while adhering to the principles that guided the design of 
the existing KOS -- e.g., by re-using some of its concepts.
Explicit KOS extension and re-use can also be used as a modularization 
mechanim, when a family of articulated KOSs (or parts of an overarching 
vocabulary) is designed to cover several (sub-)domains, and its 
designers want to allow specific applications to operate on given 
selections of concepts.
]

Regarding your last comment on the potential problems raised by 
extension and inclusion of concepts in different schemes, I'd propose 
the following note:
[
Note -- messing with existing KOSs. RDF provenance mechanisms may be 
used to track additions to a KOS that are not done by its original 
designers. However, such functionality is currently outside the scope of 
SKOS. Accordingly, this document encourages publishers of new SKOS 
concepts not to include them via skos:inScheme statements into existing 
KOSs that they do not not "own". In the above example, one should 
therefore not assert that ex2:abyssinian belongs to 
ex1:referenceAnimalScheme.
]

Notice that this last note also adresses your request for saying 
"something on how KOS developers might publish a vocabulary in SKOS, 
while asserting some practical form of ownership". For the moment, we 
unfortunately cannot propose an easy way for doing this.

I hope these modifications seem appropriate to you. Please do not 
hesitate to send further comments, your experience is really precious!

Best regards,

Antoine

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0062.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-ucr/#Accepted

> ISSUE-164: Extension vs mapping (SKOS Primer)
>
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/164
>
> Raised by: Antoine Isaac
> On product: SKOS
>
> Raised by Doug Tudhope in [1]
>
> Open world discussion and extension vs mapping in 3.1 and 3.2
>
> I’m a little concerned about the relative emphasis apparently given to extension
> vs mapping. The primer might be read as suggesting that the default way of
> connecting two KOS is via extension or direct linking, which I think would be
> inappropriate. While there are good cases for (third party) extending a KOS (eg
> by including local extensions), the wording in the intro to section 3 is perhaps
> a little enthusiastic and might run the risk of not sufficiently recognizing the
> potential problems of linking two different KOS. LIS experience has recognised
> that any major KOS represents a particular world view and that joining two
> different KOS in an effective manner is not necessarily straight forward. Hence
> the emphasis on distinct mapping relationships.
>
> Perhaps the editorial team could consider the appropriate order of the linking
> and mapping sections, whether more discussion on the rationale for mapping could
> be included, and whether some more guidance might be given on when to link and
> when to map.
>
> The linking example in section 3.1 brings up a currently somewhat problematic issue.
>   
> A new concept scheme can re-use existing concepts using the skos:inScheme
> property. Consider the example below, where a reference concept scheme for
> animals defines a concept for "cats":
>   
>
> However there is nothing to prevent a new developer attaching their own new
> concept to someone else's existing SKOS scheme and thus changing the scheme (if
> the links are followed). It would be bad practice but as far as I understand is
> possible. (A slight modification of the example in 3.1 illustrates the point below.)
>
> I appreciate this is integral to the open world model and in the long run, it
> might be addressed by mechanisms of assigning provenance to RDF (sets of)
> statements, development of trusted vocabulary registries, caution when importing
> a SKOS vocabulary, etc. In the near future, I believe that the majority of
> applications will be effectively closed world, in that they will create an
> in-house index or database based on selected resources from the Web (including
> linked data publications). Perhaps the SKOS primer might also address more
> immediate concerns of how a vocabulary provider might make their vocabulary
> available. Is it possible to say something on how KOS developers might publish a
> vocabulary in SKOS, while asserting some practical form of ownership?
>
> Apdx
>
> Eg A slight modification of the example in 3.1 if I understand it correctly
> ============= alt example (undesirable?)
> ex1:referenceAnimalScheme rdf:type skos:ConceptScheme;
>    dc:title "Reference list of animals"@en.
> ex1:cats rdf:type skos:Concept;
>    skos:prefLabel "cats"@en;
>    skos:inScheme ex1:referenceAnimalScheme.
>
> The creator of another concept scheme devoted to cat descriptions can freely
> include the reference ex2:abyssinian concept in AN EXISTING scheme, and then
> reference it as follows:
>
> ex2:catScheme rdf:type skos:ConceptScheme;
>    dc:title "The Complete Cat Thesaurus"@en.
>
> ex1:cats skos:inScheme ex2:catScheme.
>
> ex2:abyssinian rdf:type skos:Concept;
>    skos:prefLabel "Abyssinian Cats"@en;
>    skos:broader ex1:cats;
>    skos:inScheme ex1:referenceAnimalScheme.
>
>
>
>
>   
Received on Saturday, 4 October 2008 16:18:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 4 October 2008 16:18:59 GMT