W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-lld@w3.org > August 2011

Re: References to "application profiles"

From: ZENG, MARCIA <mzeng@kent.edu>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:48:00 -0400
To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, "public-xg-lld@w3.org" <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CA7C195D.E58C%mzeng@kent.edu>
Hi, all,
Sorry for being away for a while.  Just read your emails.

On 8/25/11 1:37 PM, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote:

>> As far as the "linking issue" appendix is concerned, as discussed
>> during the call, I implemented the following modifications:
>>
>http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Vocabul
>> aries_Datasets_Section2&diff=5906&oldid=5882
>
>I like this. I'm a little uncomfortable with the overlap between
>"semantic alignment" and what the OWL guide calls "ontology mapping":
>
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#OntologyMapping
>
>I'm sure there is enough of a difference, though, that we shouldn't fret
>about it.

Thanks for the revision Antoine did right after the telecon.
In the definition the word 'links' is where I stopped for a minute.
"+"Alignments" are links between semantically equivalent, similar, or
related entities
 across different value vocabularies, metadata element sets, or
datasets."

Here we mean conceptually the 'links', right?  Is it more a connection? Is
'alignment' a process or product? If it is a process, then it leads to the
links/connections. 

>
>> The point was to hint here at some "interoperability gradient".
>> Ideally, there would be APs directly re-mixing existing classes and
>> properties. 
>
>I'm uncomfortable using the term AP even for situations where a variety
>of existing classes and properties are getting reused. An OWL ontology
>can be created to document this situation, even if no new terms are
>being defined there. Granted, you don't see much of that happening yet,
>but presumably that's presumably because people are still trying to wrap
>their minds around OWL in general.
>
>> But there are many situations in which re-using a
>> vocabulary comes with risks/costs that could motivate coining one's
>own
>> "duplicate" elements. Consider what schema.org did: they just prefered
>> to coin all the elements they need, rather than spend time shopping
>> around for existing elements--which may be not well maintained anyway.
>> That's maybe not the best practice around, but that will continue to
>> happen. In such cases, establishing alignments between element sets is
>> a lesser evil.
>
>As a species, I think we are still beginners in terms of modular
>thinking. I can't think of a single existing model or set of models that
>doesn't make me squirm and shake. "Alignments" or "mappings" give me
>hope that we will be able to adapt regardless.

Both of you have expressed observations that there is no
'one-size-fits-all' and there are variety of ways when dealing with
alignments, mapping, reuse, or creation of metadata element sets. We could
acknowledge the diversity of approaches.
>
>> 
>> The "gradient" of best practice here would be: (1) own duplicate
>> element sets with no alignment; (2) own element sets with alignment to
>> existing vocabularies (3) "true" APs with re-use of existing
>> vocabularies.

These seemed to be a fair grouping.  They may align well with the 5 star
criteria TBL suggested.
I think when you said alignment to or reuse existing vocabularies, should
we indicate those existing vocabularies should be well-recognized
standards?  

>
>I agree with these idealized gradients with a couple of caveats.
>
>1) Existing vocabularies that don't conform to best practice recipes
>suck: http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/
>2) Some existing vocabularies (even popular ones) can be very weird and
>arguably would be better off being mapped
>3) The ability to transform domain-specific vocabularies into foreign
>vocabularies shouldn't be that far off if the mappings exist

These are true.
>
>> 
>> I'm not saying that it was clearly worded here, far from it :-)
>> I can also live with this point being mentioned in another section.
>But
>> I wanted to warn against making this disappear, altogether.
>
>I suspect that all these thoughts are too controversial to used on short
>notice, though.
>
>Jeff

Right. If we have more time and more experience we can provide better
information.  But showing the diversity and possible new approaches in
this matter is also a good reference.


>
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Antoine

Thanks, Antoine. Can we finalize this today? I will be on the road
tomorrow (forwarding the hurricane actually). So I hope we fix this and
keep this appendix nicely.

Marcia


>> 
>> > Dear all,
>> >
>> > Re-reading the paragraph in [1]:
>> >
>> >      A similar concern can be voiced regarding metadata element
>sets.
>> As
>> >      testified in the Linked Open Vocabularies inventory,
>> practitioners
>> >      generally follow the good practice of re-using existing element
>> sets or
>> >      building "application profiles" of them. And some projects,
>such
>> as the
>> >      Vocabulary Mapping Framework, aim at supporting that process.
>> But the lack
>> >      of long-term support for them threatens their enduring meaning
>> and common
>> >      understanding. Further, some reference frameworks, notably
>FRBR,
>> have been
>> >      implemented in different RDF vocabularies, which are not always
>> connected
>> >      together. Such situation lowers the semantic interoperability
>of
>> the
>> >      datasets expressed using these RDF vocabularies. The community
>> should
>> >      encourage the coordinated re-use of element sets for particular
>> entity
>> >      descriptions, their extension through, e.g., application
>> profiles, or their
>> >      alignment using, e.g., semantic relations from RDFS and OWL.
>> Here, we hope
>> >      that better communication between the creators and maintainers
>> of these
>> >      resources, as encouraged by our own incubator group or the LOD-
>> LAM
>> >      initiative, will help to consolidate the conceptual connections
>> between
>> >      them.
>> >
>> > ...where "a similar concern" refers to "semantic links across value
>> vocabularies".
>> >
>> > Looking closer:
>> >
>> >> A similar concern can be voiced regarding metadata element sets. As
>> >> testified in the Linked Open Vocabularies inventory, practitioners
>> >> generally follow the good practice of re-using existing element
>sets
>> or
>> >> building "application profiles" of them.
>> >
>> > If we mean Dublin-Core-style application profiles (as Singapore
>> Framework is
>> > cited further on in the paragraph), then we could say something
>like:
>> >
>> >       A similar concern can be voiced regarding metadata element
>> sets. As
>> >       testified in the Linked Open Vocabularies inventory,
>> practitioners
>> >       generally follow the good practice of re-using existing
>element
>> sets or
>> >       building "application profiles" that re-use elements from
>> multiple sets.
>> >
>> > Then, I do not really understand the first part of this sentence:
>> >
>> >> The community should encourage the coordinated re-use of element
>> sets for
>> >> particular entity descriptions, their extension through, e.g.,
>> application
>> >> profiles, or their alignment using, e.g., semantic relations from
>> RDFS and
>> >> OWL.
>> >
>> > The phrase "encourage the coordinated re-use of element sets for
>> > particular entity descriptions" seems to be saying something like:
>> >
>> >      ...promote the use of common patterns of mixing vocabularies
>for
>> >      describing particular types of things.
>> >
>> > However, I do not think this reference to application profiles
>really
>> belongs
>> > in a section on alignment.
>> >
>> > Rather, I would like to propose the following:
>> >
>> > -- That the section "The linking issue" (vague, because the whole
>LLD
>> XG report is
>> >     arguably about a "linking issue") be renamed something like:
>> >
>> >          Semantic alignment
>> >
>> > -- In this case, the first sentence -- "Many semantic links across
>> value
>> >     vocabularies are already available..." -- could be preceded with
>> a definition
>> >     along the lines of:
>> >
>> >          "Alignments" are links between semantically equivalent,
>> similar, or
>> >          related terms or entities across different value
>> vocabularies, metadata
>> >          element sets, or datasets.
>> >
>> > -- The notion of application profiles is more appropriately
>> referenced in the point
>> >     about re-using patterns:
>> >
>> >     In the paragraph:
>> >
>> >      Design patterns allow implementers to build on the experience
>of
>> >      predecessors. Traditional cataloging practices are documented
>> with a rich
>> >      array of patterns and examples, and best practices are starting
>> to be
>> >      documented for the Linked Data space as a whole (e.g.,
>> >      <ref>http://linkeddatabook.com/editions/1.0/#htoc61</ref>). [*]
>> What is needed
>> >      are design patterns specifically tailored to LLD requirements.
>> Such design
>> >      patterns would meet the needs of people and developers who
>> understand new
>> >      techniques through patterns and examples and will increase the
>> coherence of
>> >      Library Linked Data overall.
>> >
>> >     I propose inserting a sentence:
>> >
>> >      Application profiles
>(http://dublincore.org/documents/singapore-
>> framework/)
>> >      provide a method for a community of practice to document and
>> share patterns
>> >      used for describing specific types of materials.
>> >
>> > --  ...and application profiles are also relevant to "data design"
>> [2]:
>> >
>> >      Another boost for Linked Data is the growing use of OWL for
>> purposes of
>> >      data design. Prior to OWL, domain experts could use RDFS to
>> create metadata
>> >      element sets, but there was no way to map equivalencies across
>> >      vocabularies. Among other features, OWL includes an upgrade to
>> RDFS to
>> >      support ontology mapping. This allows experts to describe their
>> domain
>> >      using community idioms, while still being interoperable with
>> related or
>> >      more common idioms. A variety of tools related to OWL can be
>> found on the
>> >      W3C's RDF wiki and OWL wiki. Unified Modeling Language (UML)
>> tools are also
>> >      value to help designers represent and manipulate domain models
>> visually.
>> >      The Ontology Definition Metamodel (ODM) specification should
>> help bridge
>> >      some of the gaps between UML and OWL. [*]
>> >
>> >     I propose to add:
>> >
>> >      Application profiles
>(http://dublincore.org/documents/singapore-
>> framework/)
>> >      provide a way to specify how a community of practice defines a
>> >      domain model and re-uses specific vocabularies in order to
>> create metadata
>> >      conforming to a particular pattern.
>> >
>> > Tom
>> >
>> > [1]
>>
>http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion#T
>> he_linking_issue
>> > [2]
>>
>http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion#T
>> ools_for_data_designers
>> > [3]
>>
>http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion#D
>> evelop_and_disseminate_best-practices_design_patterns_tailored_to_LLD
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> 
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2011 19:48:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 25 August 2011 19:48:44 GMT