W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Should we adopt SKOS?

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:18:56 -0800
Message-ID: <50EF6880.3080308@kcoyle.net>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
Bernard, I agree about the dependencies. But isn't this then the area 
where versioning becomes important? The main thing is to be able to 1) 
choose a version to use and 2) be able to determine if there are other 
versions available 3) upgrade at your convenience. We do this regularly 
with software. Older versions remain available when newer ones are 
released; sometimes there is a notification mechanism for new versions, 
but essentially it is up to the user to determine when to upgrade.

kc

On 1/10/13 3:05 PM, Bernard Vatant wrote:
> Hello all
>
> I'm both glad to see those issues being open, and at the same time
> puzzled that they come so late in the history of vocabularies :)
>
> Just browse the Linked Open Vocabularies cloud following dependency
> links to figure that every vocabulary relies on average upon 5 other
> vocabularies in the cloud, half are used for proper semantic extension
> through rdfs:subClassOf, rdfs:subPropertyOf, owl:equivalentClass,
> owl:equivalentProperty, rdfs:range, rdfs:domain or more complex OW
> constructions (restrictions), half are used to represent metadata. And
> of course each of of those 5 relies on 5 other ones and so on. Basically
> it's a small world where any change somewhere can impact a great part of
> the cloud.
>
> But who actually cares? There is indeed absolutely no proven mechanism,
> either technical or social, allowing to track those changes and take
> them into account.
>
> #1 If my vocabulary V2 relies on V1, how do I know that V1 has changed?
>
> #2 If my vocabulary V1 is used by V2, how do I know, and should I ping
> the responsible of V2 if I make changes in V1? And should I consider how
> my vocabulary is re-used by V2 before making any change? Suppose Dan
> Brickley decides for some reason that the class foaf:Person is
> deprecated. What happens next? (of course he won't do that, but you get
> the point)
>
> #1 is the simplest to address. Tools like the "LOV-Bot" developed by
> Pierre-Yves, mentioned earlier today in another thread, can track
> changes in published vocabularies by scanning them on a daily basis.
>
> Addressing #2 directly is more tricky. A good social practice would be
> for the creator of V2 to ping the owner of V1 saying hello, your
> vocabulary V1 is cool, I've used it in V2 which is published here. Do
> you think I interpreted it correctly? I made extensions that you light
> consider including etc etc. Sort of starting a social relationship, that
> is. But who is actually doing that now? I've heard many vocabulary
> creators complaining their excellent vocabularies are mostly ignored.
> But have they started by making this?
> This of course supposes that every published vocabulary have some
> responsible and visible curator. For some of them it's quite obvious to
> find, and they gladly respond when asked (Hi Martin).
> But even if they do now, what will happen next year, and ten years from
> now? Who will inherit FOAF, GoodRelations, Geonames Ontology ... and
> many more.
>
> Dublin Core conference in September will be exactly about this. How do
> we Link to the Future? That seems a good target for those wanting to
> work on those issues seriously.
> http://dcevents.dublincore.org/index.php/IntConf/dc-2013
>
> Best
>
> Bernard
>
>
> 2013/1/10 Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
> <mailto:martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>>
>
>     Hi Ivan, all:
>
>     FYI: For GoodRelations, we will provide a formal, OWL/RDFS-based
>     mapping in the next GR service update, i.e. for an RDF client who
>     can handle owl:sameAs, rdfs:subClassOf, rdfs:subPropertyOf,
>     owl:equivalentProperty, and owl:equivalentClass (in a moderate,
>     pragmatic way - no need for full OWL reasoning), it will not matter
>     whether GoodRelations is used in the original namespace or in the
>     schema.org <http://schema.org> namespace.
>
>     E.g.
>
>     @prefix schema: <http://schema.org/> .
>     @prefix gr: <http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#>.
>
>     schema:ParcelService a owl:Class ;
>              owl:equivalentClass gr:DeliveryModeParcelService .
>
>     By that, we can also easily bridge the slight differences in naming
>     conventions between the two namespaces, as documented in [1]
>
>     For the near future, I think that defining such a thing as a "best
>     practice" should be sufficient. We could then put the actual task on
>     the shoulders of the maintainers of the original vocabulary.
>
>     However, should schema.org <http://schema.org> evolve beyond ca.
>     1000 types and include components from more than ca. 10 vocabularies
>     that are not fully stable, we will need a more flexible and scalable
>     approach.
>
>     Ideally, we would already sketch the architecture for this future
>     now (nice PhD or research paper topic) while we muddle through with
>     the pragmatic approach sketched above.
>
>     Martin
>
>     [1]
>     http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/Cookbook/Schema.org#Naming_Differences
>
>
>     On Jan 10, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>
>      > Exactly...
>      >
>      > I think it would worthwhile to have some general discussion on
>     how to maintain equivalence between what you call 'adopted'
>     vocabularies and their original. We do not want to disenfranchise
>     users who happen to use (or have used) the original namespace/terms.
>      >
>      > Putting my RDF hat on, it would/could be possible to set up some
>     machine readable files defining the equivalences although, I am
>     afraid, a simple owl:sameAs, owl:samePropertyAs, etc, may not work
>     in all cases. There is also an issue of who would manage those
>     equivalences: is it the job of schema.org <http://schema.org>? The
>     'authors/owners' of the original vocabularies? This group as a
>     community? I honestly do not know. And I am also not 100% whether
>     this is the right approach.
>      >
>      > At the moment we have two 'adopted' vocabularies (GoodRelations
>     and rNews); out of those GR has a significant adoption already in
>     its original namespace, I am not sure about the rNews figures. LRMI,
>     afaik, does not have a non-schema version, so that is not an issue.
>     But if we begin to discuss SKOS, SIOC and the others, then it is
>     worthwhile having this discussion before it gets out of hand...
>      >
>      > Whether it is a workshop or simply a discussion on this list: I
>     do not know. I would certainly like to hear the opinions on this list.
>      >
>      > Thanks Martin, for raising this.
>      >
>      > Ivan
>      >
>      > On Jan 9, 2013, at 19:28 , Martin Hepp
>     <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
>     <mailto:martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>> wrote:
>      >
>      >> I would like to add at this point that I see schema.org
>     <http://schema.org> first and foremost as an effort to provide ex
>     ante schema alignment under a common, easily accessible umbrella,
>     following a "schema alignment before data publication" paradigm.
>      >> This makes authoring markup easier (no namespace traversals) and
>     reduces the complexity for consuming clients.
>      >>
>      >> This having said, I would also rather suggest to import a
>     pragmatic subset of SKOS into schema.org <http://schema.org>, in a
>     fashion similar to the external enumerations pattern in use now and
>     the additionalType property solution for external type systems.
>      >>
>      >> An general open question is how we maintain the alignment of the
>     original vocabularies (LRMI, GoodRelations, maybe SKOS, SIOC, ...)
>     with their conceptually equivalent elements in schema.org
>     <http://schema.org>.
>      >>
>      >> In GoodRelations, we will simply try to keep both in sync
>     manual, which seems reasonable given that the conceptual model is
>     pretty stable.
>      >>
>      >> In the long run, however, we will need to find a solution that
>     combines the centralized schema.org <http://schema.org> approach
>     with distributed contributions from various domains.
>      >>
>      >> Maybe that is an interesting topic for a new schema.org
>     <http://schema.org> workshop in 2013?
>      >>
>      >> Best
>      >>
>      >> Martin
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >> On Jan 9, 2013, at 7:00 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>      >>
>      >>> +Cc: Jamie
>      >>>
>      >>> On 9 January 2013 16:29, Richard Wallis
>     <richard.wallis@oclc.org <mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org>> wrote:
>      >>>> Coming from the bibliographic world, specifically chairing
>       the Schema Bib
>      >>>> Extend Group[1] (who are building a consensus around a group
>     of proposals
>      >>>> for Schema.org extensions for bibliographic resources, before
>     submitting
>      >>>> them to this group), I am identifying situations where being
>     able to model
>      >>>> things as SKOS[2] Concepts held in ConceptSchemes would make a
>     great deal of
>      >>>> sense.
>      >>>>
>      >>>> Working with colleagues we were finding ourselves almost
>     reinventing the
>      >>>> SKOS model in [proposed] Schema.org vocabulary.
>      >>>>
>      >>>> The introduction of External Enumerations[2] provided the
>     ability to link to
>      >>>> lists of things controlled by external authorities.  An
>     approach used widely
>      >>>> in the bibliographic and other domains – Library of Congress
>     Subject
>      >>>> Headings[4] for example.  Many of these authorities are
>     modelled using SKOS
>      >>>> (Concepts within ConceptSchemes) which introduces a consistent
>     structured
>      >>>> way to describe relationships (broader/narrower), language
>     specific
>      >>>> preferred labels, etc.
>      >>>>
>      >>>> Sub-typing Intangible for Concept and ConceptScheme, it would be
>      >>>> comparatively easy to introduce SKOS into Schema.  The
>     benefits I believe
>      >>>> being to add even more value to External Enumeration;
>     providing a flexible
>      >>>> simple-ish yet standard pattern for marking up lists of
>     concepts and their
>      >>>> interrelationships; provide a very easy way for already published
>      >>>> authoritative lists of concepts to adopt Schema.org and
>     provide valuable
>      >>>> resources for all to connect with.
>      >>>>
>      >>>> For instance VIAF[4] the Virtual International Authority File,
>     a well used
>      >>>> source of URIs and authoritative names for people and
>     organisations
>      >>>> (compiled and managed by the bibliographic community but used
>     widely) is
>      >>>> already in SKOS.  SKOS is also used in many other domains.
>      >>>>
>      >>>> I could see this adding value without significant impact on
>     the rest of
>      >>>> Schema.
>      >>>>
>      >>>> What do others think?
>      >>>
>      >>> I've been thinking in this direction too (and had brief discussion
>      >>> with Jamie, cc:'d, w.r.t. Freebase's approach).
>      >>>
>      >>> SKOS has done well and a great many controlled vocabularies in the
>      >>> thesauri, subject classification and code list tradition are
>     expressed
>      >>> using it. SKOS handles various cases where 'class/object/property'
>      >>> models don't capture things well. I'd like to have a way of
>     reflecting
>      >>> SKOS-oriented data into schema.org <http://schema.org>
>     descriptions without going
>      >>> 'multi-namespace'. There are also already various corners of
>      >>> schema.org <http://schema.org> where different loose notions of
>     'category' are slipping
>      >>> in.
>      >>>
>      >>> My current preference would be to call a new type "Topic" or
>     perhaps
>      >>> "Category" rather than the more esoteric / vague "Concept",
>     even while
>      >>> borrowing most structure and terminology from SKOS.
>      >>>
>      >>> Do you have a strawman list of what you'd hope to include, from a
>      >>> bibliographic perspective?
>      >>>
>      >>> Dan
>      >>>
>      >>>> ~Richard
>      >>>>
>      >>>> --
>      >>>> Richard Wallis
>      >>>> Technology Evangelist
>      >>>> OCLC
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/
>      >>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/
>      >>>> [3] http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/ExternalEnumerations
>      >>>> [4] http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects.html
>      >>>>
>      >>>
>      >>
>      >> --------------------------------------------------------
>      >> martin hepp
>      >> e-business & web science research group
>      >> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
>      >>
>      >> e-mail: hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org <mailto:hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
>      >> phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 <tel:%2B49-%280%2989-6004-4217>
>      >> fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 <tel:%2B49-%280%2989-6004-4620>
>      >> www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
>      >> http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
>      >> skype:   mfhepp
>      >> twitter: mfhepp
>      >>
>      >> Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
>      >> =================================================================
>      >> * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >
>      >
>      > ----
>      > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>      > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>      > mobile: +31-641044153 <tel:%2B31-641044153>
>      > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>
>     --------------------------------------------------------
>     martin hepp
>     e-business & web science research group
>     universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
>
>     e-mail: hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org <mailto:hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
>     phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 <tel:%2B49-%280%2989-6004-4217>
>     fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 <tel:%2B49-%280%2989-6004-4620>
>     www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
>     http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
>     skype:   mfhepp
>     twitter: mfhepp
>
>     Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
>     =================================================================
>     * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> *Bernard Vatant
> *
> Vocabularies & Data Engineering
> Tel : + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59
> Skype : bernard.vatant
> Blog : the wheel and the hub <http://blog.hubjects.com/>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> *Mondeca*****
> 3 cité Nollez 75018 Paris, France
> www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com/>
> Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Friday, 11 January 2013 01:19:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 11 January 2013 01:19:30 GMT