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

RE: SKOS and Freebase

From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 20:00:36 +0000
To: "kcoyle@kcoyle.net" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
CC: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-ID: <65a72645b3084483a8558798c3dfba32@BY2PR06MB204.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
I believe that the concepts in FAST are all free-standing. For example, here is the FAST identifier for the concept of cemeteries:

http://id.worldcat.org/fast/850521


If someone wanted to claim that a book was schema:about a more complex notion like "cemeteries in NYC", there could presumably be two choices:
- Simple/simplistic: repeat the schema:about property for each component
or
- Fussy/complicated: coin a new concept that was skos:narrower than the FAST concept and relate that to a particular place (or time or person or organization or ...) using some kind of property like (schema:location).

I realize that schema:location doesn't currently have a schema:domainIncludes that resembles Concept, but it seems like it could.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 10:53 AM
> To: Dan Brickley
> Cc: W3C Web Schemas Task Force
> Subject: Re: SKOS and Freebase
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/21/13 7:30 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> 
> >
> > To what extent does FAST make explicit the relationships beween the
> pieces?
> 
> 
> I don't believe it does, but perhaps someone from OCLC can answer that.
> (Or we could closely read the documentation.) Note that OCLC has just
> announced that FAST headings will be added to WorldCat data:
> 
> http://www.oclc.org/news/announcements/2013/enriching-worldcat-with-

> fast.en.html
> 
> >
> > 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.
> 
> 
> LC Headings don't have verbs (AFAIK) so your particular case does not
> apply. However, the main criticism of FAST is false hits, coming from
> situations where one has more than subject heading whose "parts" can
> combine "wrongly." So if you have a book that talks about 19th century
> poetry and the rap music of Dr. Dre, you could end up with:
> 
> Poetry
> 19th century
> Rap music
> Dr. Dre
> 
> and you could retrieve this on the unlikely query of "Rap music 19th
> century".
> 
> BTW, FAST is not just a rote chopping up of LCSH -- it makes some very
> interesting decisions and modifications. There is an entire book [1]
> describing this, but unfortunately the table of contents is not
> available for viewing. That alone, though, provides a great outline of
> thought that went into FAST.
> 
> kc
> [1]
> http://books.google.com/books?id=CAE1QQAACAAJ&dq=fast+faceted+applicati

> on&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KT9lUsn_LoGWiAL3-oDYAg&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > 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_AndyHeath

> er.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
> >>
> >
> 
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net

> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
> 

Received on Monday, 21 October 2013 20:01:08 UTC

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