W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > November 2003

Re: Design Issues (1) - Specialised vocab vs. extensible modular voca bs?

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 09:18:58 -0500
To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "Miles, AJ (Alistair) " <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20031106141858.GA24890@w3.org>

Yup, I think it is things "like" Thesauri that are in scope.

"like" being under-determined somewhat.

Here is my take:

RDFS/OWL are RDF's own way of doing this stuff. We don't need to 
reproduce that.

SWAD-E's thes vocab is for representing KOS systems that don't (for
whatever reason) directly map into RDFS/OWL, but do map into a 
thesaurus-like network of relationships amongst named concepts.

So:

(1) out of scope
fido --type--> Poodle --subClassOf--> Dog --subClassOf--> Mammal

(2) in scope

fido --bt--> Poodle --bt--> Dog --bt--> Mammal


Obviously you can talk about the same stuff in both traditions.

The explicit RDFS/OWL view (ie. 1. above) is clearer and supports more 
inference, eg.  you can deduce that fido is of type Mammal, thanks to
RDFS's formal semantics.

(2) is more typical of what we see in the library world, where the 
looser notion of 'bt' conflates a variety of distinctions.

So the idea here is to bootstrap the semantic web by allowing an 
RDF representation of these fuzzier, messier but still useful 
databases of related named concepts. Remodelling a thesaurus as an
RDF vocabulary (RDFS/OWL) is expensive and time consuming. Dumping out 
from a thesaurus into TIF should be easy and cheap, and allow some 
benefit from use of generic RDF tools, although of course missing out 
on other aspects of RDF which focus on the type hierarchies.

Does this make sense?

Dan
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2003 09:19:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:45:08 UTC