W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > January 2005

RE: Concept spaces and Namespaces RE: Glossary of terms ...

From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:57:48 +0100
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
Cc: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <GOEIKOOAMJONEFCANOKCIEACFHAA.bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>


My message was a bit provocative, but I fully agree with your viewpoint. And since you
mention Swoogle, I put a post this morning on my blog about the "Semantic Mess" created by
people keeping on re-defining concepts ...



> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]De la part de Charles
> McCathieNevile
> Envoye : mardi 18 janvier 2005 16:35
> A : Bernard Vatant
> Cc : 'Thomas Baker'; Miles, AJ (Alistair); public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Objet : Re: Concept spaces and Namespaces RE: Glossary of terms ...
> Salut Bernard and all,
> I think that it is not a good idea for the SKOS specification to try and
> equate a namespace with a set of concepts described as a "scheme". If I want
> to create a particular list for a particular purpose, it seems to me that one
> of the glories of the RDF-based semantic web is that I can do this simply by
> mixing and matching stuff I find, adding my own things only if necessary.
> A couple of times I have gone through this exercise in RDF. It is not yet
> easy, although tools like Ontaria (which has a smart approach to helping
> users) and Swoogle (which has a huge amount of useful data) are starting to
> make it a reasonable proposition. I think that we should be encouraging work
> in that direction, rather than the continual creation of new URIs that only
> serve the purpose of syntactic simplifaction, thus encouraging the
> hand-coders at the expense of the tool users (who are the vast majority of
> potential users as far as I can tell).
> cheers
> Chaals
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Bernard Vatant wrote:
> >2. Not so good idea, since it is at risks to conflate with the "namespace" notion. BTW
> >current SKOS specification seems completely agnostic about the relationship between
> >namespace and concept space. OTOH, most Thesauri and vocabularies are defined
> as "unique
> >name" spaces. That means legacy concepts will have generally been identified
> by a unique
> >name *inside the concept space* before being ported to the RDF format. So an obvious
> >migration practice will certainly be to use a single RDF namespace to somehow represent
> >the concept space. I don't know if that should be recommended by the specification, or
> >pointed out as a current/best/recommended practice. In any case, I don't think SKOS
> >specification should be silent on that point, the more so if it actually shifts from
> >"concept scheme" to "concept space".
> >
> >Just an idea : if indeed it's a good practice to attach a namespace to a concept space,
> >why not add this attachment as a deicated SKOS property? It would make useless the
> >repetitive declaration of "inScheme" properties, OTOH it does not seem to be consistent
> >with the current cardinality of "inScheme" property ...
Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2005 15:57:57 UTC

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