RE: Discussion issue: should semantic relation statements be memb ers of concept schemes?

Kaustubh,

I do think the issues are closely related.

However I think it is perfectly OK for a concept that is a top concept in
one scheme to have broader concepts from other schemes.      

I.e. let's say I publish some concept X, and use it as a leaf (i.e. end of
branch) concept in my scheme Y.  But someone else wants to specialise my
vocabulary, and so uses concept X as a top concept in a new scheme and
creates more specific concepts.  

If we make the proposed change to the way of handling top concepts, then the
statements describing both these hypothetical schemes can be loaded into a
single model, and you could browse a virtual concept scheme that is the
superset of both of the constituent schemes, or both schemes separately.

There are lots of other interesting possibilities to be explored also.

(N.B. it is intended that the SKOS Core 1.0 Guide [1] will form a basis for
the two proposed notes to be published via SWBP-WG after phase 2, but some
things in it will definitely be reworked, the handling of top concepts for
example.)

Hope I'm starting to make some sense.

Al.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/1.0/guide/


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Supekar, 
> Kaustubh S.
> Sent: 03 August 2004 18:40
> To: 'public-esw-thes@w3.org'
> Subject: RE: Discussion issue: should semantic relation statements be
> members of concept schemes?
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Don't you think these two issues are closely related?. Major 
> motivation
> of your requirement is concepts participating at different 
> positions across schemes.
> 
> Cos If you introduce a stop gap solution then we would have 
> something like this
> 
> <skos:ConceptScheme rdf:about="http://a.com/scheme/1"
> <skos:hasTopConcept rdf:about="http://a.com/Concept/001">
> </skos:ConceptScheme>
> 
> <skos:concept rdf:about="http://a.com/Concept/001">
> <skos:prefLabel>A</skos:prefLabel>
> <skos:inScheme rdf:resource="http://a.com/scheme/1"/>
> <skos:inScheme rdf:resource="http://a.com/scheme/2"/>
> <skos:broader>C</skos:broader>
> <skos:narrower>B</skos:narrower>
> </skos:concept>
> 
> According to [1], a topconcept is *not allowed* to have 
> broader concepts. 
> The stop-gap solution is then semantically ambiguous. 
> 
> An alternative solution would be 
> 
> <skos:concept rdf:about="http://a.com/Concept/001">
> <skos:prefLabel>A</skos:prefLabel>
> <skos:inScheme rdf:resource="http://a.com/scheme/1">
>   <skos:isTopConcept>True</skos:isTopConcept>
>   <skos:broader>C</skos:broader>
>   <skos:narrower>B</skos:narrower>
> </skos:inScheme>
> <skos:inScheme rdf:resource="http://a.com/scheme/2">
>   <skos:narrower>B</skos:narrower>
> </skos:inScheme>
> </skos:concept>
> 
> Here we introduce a new property 'isTopConcept'.
> 
> [1] SKOS Core 1.0 Guide
> 
> Regards,
> Kaustubh Supekar
> Research Intern
> Division of BioMedical Informatics
> Mayo Clinic
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Miles, 
> AJ (Alistair) 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 12:24 PM
> To: 'Supekar, Kaustubh S.'; 'public-esw-thes@w3.org'
> Subject: Discussion issue: should semantic relation 
> statements be members of concept schemes?
> 
> 
> Kaustubh,
> 
> Would it be fair to boil your comments down to the statement:
> 
> "Should the RDF STATEMENTS relating concepts via a 
> skos:semanticRelation predicate (such as skos:broader) belong 
> to a specific scheme or not?"
> 
> I've been mulling this one over for a while, but haven't 
> reached any conclusions (there are interesting pros and cons 
> both ways).
> 
> Anyway I hope we can resolve the top concepts issue without 
> having to solve this deeper issue (I've changed the mail 
> subject in an effort to separate the strands :)
> 
> Al.
> 
> ---
> Alistair Miles
> Research Associate
> CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> Building R1 Room 1.60
> Fermi Avenue
> Chilton
> Didcot
> Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
> United Kingdom
> Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
> Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of 
> Supekar, Kaustubh 
> > S.
> > Sent: 03 August 2004 18:15
> > To: 'public-esw-thes@w3.org'
> > Subject: RE: [Proposal][SKOS-Core] handling top concepts
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Few Questions on the proposal note.
> > 
> > Can we attribute narrower and broader concepts specific to 
> a *scheme*
> > 
> > For e.g. 
> > I have relationship
> > C
> > |
> > A
> > |
> > B
> > In another scheme say A is a topConcept according to your 
> requirement, 
> > that indicates, if I am not mistaken A doesn't have a broader term.
> > A
> > |
> > B
> > 
> > I think the SKOS Schema currently handles participation of 
> a concept 
> > in a particular scheme. Can we specify position of a 
> concept respect 
> > to a scheme.
> > 
> > <skos:concept rdf:about="http://a.com/Concept/001">
> > <skos:prefLabel>A</skosprefLabel>
> > <skos:inScheme rdf:resource="http://a.com/scheme/1"/>
> > <skos:broader>C</skos:broader>
> > <skos:narrower>B</skos:narrower>
> > </skos:concept>
> > 
> > How do you represent the alternative hierarchy as mentioned 
> above and 
> > attribute it to scheme 2.
> > The Question is not limited to TopConcepts. We may have a 
> possibility 
> > where the position of a concept in an hierarchy might vary across 
> > schemes.
> > 
> > Am I missing something here?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Kaustubh Supekar
> > Research Intern
> > Division of BioMedical Informatics
> > Mayo Clinic
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Miles, AJ 
> > (Alistair)
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 11:32 AM
> > To: 'public-esw-thes@w3.org'
> > Subject: [Proposal][SKOS-Core] handling top concepts
> > 
> > 
> > This is a proposal in relation to the requirement outlined in [1].
> > 
> > To support identification of top concepts in situations 
> where concepts 
> > may be members of more than one concept scheme, I suggest the 
> > following actions:
> > 
> > 1. The skos:TopConcept class be deprecated. 
> > 2. A new property skos:hasTopConcept be added, with domain 
> > skos:ConceptScheme and range skos:Concept.
> > 
> > See also [2].
> > 
> > Al.
> > 
> > [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2004Aug/0001.html
> [2] http://esw.w3.org/topic/SkosDev_2fSkosCore_2fTopConcepts
> 
> ---
> Alistair Miles
> Research Associate
> CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> Building R1 Room 1.60
> Fermi Avenue
> Chilton
> Didcot
> Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
> United Kingdom
> Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
> Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
>

Received on Tuesday, 3 August 2004 14:03:25 UTC