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

Re: vocabs, metadata set, datasets

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 19:03:04 +0100
Message-ID: <4D2603D8.5070609@few.vu.nl>
To: public-xg-lld@w3.org
A very interesting point, Jeff.

I'd say that appearing as subject of foaf:focus is a good sign of being a value vocabulary. But this restricts it to skos:Concepts, as skos:Concept is the domain of foaf:focus. And I guess some peple (including you!) would like skos-xl:Labels to be potentially counted as elements of (some) value vocabularies.

Another issue, I think we must leave it open, whether appearing as object of foaf:focus bars from counting as value vocabulary element.
Let's consider in VIAF an instance of foaf:Person is the foaf:focus of some skos:Concept.
I can imagine that some cases (the rather library-oriented) will like to pick the instance of skos:Concept as, say, the dc:subject of a given book . But I can also imagine other choices (more "traditional Linked Data" in their vision?) where the instance of foaf:Person would be used directly as the object of their dc:subject statement. In that latter case the value vocabulary is made of the instances of foaf:Person.
In fact we could consider that VIAF is a value vocabulary with several (interconnected) type facets ("sub-vocabularies"), in which applications can pick their "values" from as they see fit. And that's a consequence of your data design I like very much.


> OTOH, foaf:focus provides a connection between SKOS and reality
> (FOAF/RDA/etc.) that VIAF also uses:
> http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_focus
> I would argue that information on this side of foaf:focus falls into the
> "Dataset" category. This could explain the tension Karen noted of how to
> classify VIAF.
> I'm inclined to believe this foaf:focus pattern is the key to "authority
> data" in general and I'm trying to weave it into the use case cluster
> document. Are people willing to believe foaf:focus provides the same
> type of symmetry between "value vocabulary" and "dataset" as it does
> between "concept" and "reality"?
> Jeff
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-xg-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-lld-
>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mark van Assem
>> Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 8:00 AM
>> To: public-xg-lld@w3.org
>> Cc: Karen Coyle
>> Subject: Re: vocabs, metadata set, datasets
>> Hi all,
>> As per my action I have written some text [1] to explain the terms
>> "dataset, metadata element set, value vocabulary" with feedback from
>> Karen and Antoine to address the things that don't fit very nicely.
>> Please let me know what you think, after I've had your input we'll put
>> it on the public list to get shot at.
>> Mark.
> [1]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Library_terminology_informally_explai
>> ned#Vocabularies.2C_Element_sets.2C_Datasets
>> On 28/12/2010 18:40, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>> I have been organizing the vocabularies and technologies on the
>> archives
>>> cluster page [1] and it was a very interesting exercise trying to
>>> determine what category some of the "things" fit into. This could
>> turn
>>> out to be a starting place for our upcoming discussion of our
>>> definitions since it has real examples. The hard part seems to be
>> value
>>> vocabularies v. datasets, and I have a feeling that there will not
> be
>> a
>>> clear line between them.
>>> kc
>>> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Cluster_Archives#Vocabularies
>> _and_Technologies
Received on Thursday, 6 January 2011 18:01:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:56 UTC