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

Re: SKOS and Freebase

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 01:30:23 +1100
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=4u8pfPtLvB90HrteR3BcNx_0EqRfR7DdqQ+h7Dw9QgeQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Cc: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 22 October 2013 00:34, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
> Thad, linking may be easier with FAST[1] than LCSH. LCSH is pre-coordinated,
> so it has strings like:
>
> Confucianism --China --Rituals.
>
> which won't match any topics outside of the library world. FAST has taken
> LCSH and broken the pre-coordinated topics into separate statements:
>
> Confucianism
> China
> Rituals
>
> FAST is available as linked data.

To what extent does FAST make explicit the relationships beween the pieces?

A Lonclass (pseudo-UDC) example that stuck in my head, tried to code
"Margaret Thatcher's letter of apology to TV-AM". You can imagine
using RDF and SKOS and well known entity IDs to modernize this to the
extend that you know a) we're talking about Margaret Thatcher, British
Conservative politician; b) TV-AM, UK media company,  and that is
quite useful even on its own; but the trickiest part is the
relationship. Who did the apologizing? Mrs Thatcher or TV-AM? This
issue seems to be the crossover point between SKOS in its current
form, which can present a pre-cooked bundle of concepts, and full RDF
which can at the cost of more work, explain their interconnection more
explicitly.

In full RDF, dealing with such situations case by case, we might e.g.
declare a subtype of http://schema.org/Action with 'apologist' and
'apologee' relations and a definition making clear which participant
is doing what. In W3C SKOS currently I believe the best we'd get is
the bundle of ["TV-AM", "Mrs Thatcher", "Apology, letter of"]. And
maybe that's fine for most purposes - I'm just curious how far the
FAST effort tries to make explicit the compositional structure. From
what I remember of UDC's notation it didn't really do as much as some
people wanted here...

Dan

ps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonclass has the example,
"656.881:301.162.721:32.007THATCHER: 654.192.731TV-AM" supposedly
composed from these parts,

656.881:301.162.721 “LETTERS OF APOLOGY”
656.881 “LETTERS (POSTAL SERVICES)”
656.881:06.022.6 “RESIGNATION LETTERS”
654.192.731TV-AM “TV AM (TELEVISION AM)”

... though it doesn't formally afaik indicate who was the apologist

see also http://www.udcds.com/seminar/2011/media/slides/UDCSeminar2011_AndyHeather.pdf


> kc
> [1] http://experimental.worldcat.org/fast/
>
>
> On 10/20/13 6:40 PM, Thad Guidry wrote:
>>
>> Tom is correct.
>>
>> Let's be clear, the data still has to be linked for LCSH concepts. There
>> is much work to be done on that front.
>>
>> I have been continually applying most high level LCSH concepts to
>> Freebase manually, but a better interface for human curation and
>> aligning and linking the LCSH concepts to Freebase is what is needed
>> (but a lot of that could be done with OpenRefine and other automated
>> tools).  It would be even more awesome for other folks to bear and share
>> that burden and help build or refine the existing tools to help with
>> automation.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Tom Morris <tfmorris@gmail.com
>> <mailto:tfmorris@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl
>>     <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>> wrote:
>>
>>         I got messed up with my mail splitting: but I really want to
>>         flag that Thad's
>>
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/public-vocabs/2013Oct/__0142.html
>>
>>
>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013Oct/0142.html>
>>
>>         is really awesome.And seems a good case in favour of SKOS data,
>>         for all those who want to do something similar but can't handle
>>         the poliferation of namespaces.
>>
>>
>>     One caution - that example isn't representative.  Of the 389,668
>>     Library of Congress Subject Heading (LCSH) concepts in Freebase,
>>     only 7,842 have been linked to an equivalent Freebase topic.  Also
>>     the LCSH was  loaded in 2010 and, as far as I'm aware, hasn't been
>>     updated since.  I suspect the hierarchy is relatively stable, but
>>     the lack of currency is something else to be aware of.
>>
>>     It demonstrates interesting possibilities, but it isn't useful for
>>     much in its current form.
>>
>>     Tom
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -Thad
>> Thad on Freebase.com <http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry>
>> Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>
>
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>
Received on Monday, 21 October 2013 14:31:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:32 UTC