- From: Thomas Baker <thomas.baker@bi.fhg.de>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 06:00:24 +0100
- To: Leonard Will <L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk>
- Cc: SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, Alan Gilchrist <cura@fastnet.co.uk>, Ron Davies <ron@rondavies.be>
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 08:31:52PM +0000, Leonard Will wrote: > >These problems could perhaps be addressed with careful wording. > >However, I'm not sure much can be done to avoid the terminology clash > >between a thesaurus "term" (a natural-language label, which may > >sometimes also be a descriptor identifying a concept) and an SKOS > >"term" (a concept, or unit of thought, identified with a URI and > >labelled with natural-language "labels"). Both uses of "term" are > >fundamental to their respective communities. "Term" is perhaps one of > >those words that is doomed to have multiple functions -- e.g. even in > >the title: a "Glossary of terms...". > > If SKOS uses "term" as a synonym for "concept", I think that that is > unfortunate. Apart from the fact that the natural-language > interpretations of the two words are quite different, a controlled > vocabulary such as that of SKOS terminology should ideally not contain > two words for the same thing. (Or are you saying that in SKOS a concept > only becomes a "term" once it is > identified with a URI and labelled with natural-language "labels"?) Not quite... I am not talking about the thesaurus concepts that are described using the SKOS Core vocabulary but the "terms" of the SKOS Core vocabulary itself -- terms such as Collection [1] or even Concept [2]. As in: "The base namespace for all terms in the SKOS Core vocabulary is..." and "Each term (i.e. class or property) in the SKOS Core vocabulary..." [3]. > We may have to accept a certain looseness of meaning, though, because > even in the thesaurus community it is conventional to talk of broader, > narrower and related terms (BT, NT, RT) whereas it would really be more > correct to speak about broader, narrower and related concepts. I agree. To muddy the waters yet further: in the draft SPARQL spec, an "RDF Term" is defined as "anything that can occur in the RDF data model" -- i.e., literals and URI references! [4] This is somewhat in line with the notion that a vocabulary is a "set of URI references" [5,6]. (Or is it...?) I do not see any way around the "term" problem other than to specify what one means in a particular context ("thesaurus term", "SKOS term", "RDF term"...). Tom [1] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#Collection [2] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#Concept [3] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/2004-12-17.html [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/ [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/ [6] http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/subglossary/owl-guide.rdf/20 -- Dr. Thomas Baker Thomas.Baker@izb.fraunhofer.de Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven mobile +49-160-9664-2129 Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft work +49-30-8109-9027 53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-144-2352 Personal email: thbaker79@alumni.amherst.edu
Received on Monday, 17 January 2005 04:58:38 UTC