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

RE: vocabs, metadata set, datasets

From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 13:37:43 -0500
Message-ID: <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF590AEC6E39@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Antoine,

I would be happiest if the domain of foaf:focus remained skos:Concept.
The axioms in SKOS-XL are good enough that I'm willing to believe a set
of skos:Concepts in a skos:ConceptScheme constitutes a "value
vocabulary" regardless of whether SKOS-XL is being used explicitly.

I'm less comfortable believing skos:Concepts that *aren't* bound to a
skos:ConceptScheme qualify for "value vocabulary" status.

I agree with your assessment of either end of foaf:focus being
reasonable objects of dc:subject. It would be nice if there was an axiom
specified somewhere to formalize this.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xg-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-lld-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Antoine Isaac
> Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 1:03 PM
> To: public-xg-lld@w3.org
> Subject: Re: vocabs, metadata set, datasets
> 
> 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.
> 
> Antoine
> 
> 
> >
> > 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 18:39:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 6 January 2011 18:39:27 GMT