RE: SKOS Core Guide new introduction

Added a subsection about terminology used, referring to definitions in other
sources:

http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/guide/2005-01-25.html#secaboutterminolog
y

... this seem like a good idea?

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 Miles, AJ 
> (Alistair)
> Sent: 25 January 2005 13:50
> To: 'Thomas Baker'; SWAD Europe Thesaurus
> Subject: SKOS Core Guide new introduction
> 
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> In response to basic issues 1 & 2 from Tom (see below) I've 
> reworked the
> introductory section of the SKOS Core Guide:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/guide/2005-01-25.html
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Haven't tried a new abstract as yet.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Al.
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Thomas Baker
> > Sent: 10 January 2005 13:32
> > To: SWAD Europe Thesaurus
> > Subject: Review of SKOS documents - 1/2
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Dear all,
> > 
> > As a member of the Semantic Web Best Practices working group
> > I was asked to review several SKOS documents, and Alistair
> > suggested I re-post my comments for discussion here as well.
> > 
> > I only recently joined this list and do not know if some of
> > the questions I raise haven't already been discussed, perhaps
> > even at length.  Also, as I make clear in my comments, I tend
> > to read things through Dublin Core glasses.
> > 
> > I divided my comments into two parts: basic issues (attached
> > below) and points of stylistic detail (the next message).
> > 
> > Tom
> > 
> > ---
> > 
> > 
> > Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 10:46:03 +0100
> > From: Thomas Baker <thomas.baker@bi.fhg.de>
> > To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
> > Cc: "'public-swbp-wg@w3.org'" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
> > Subject: Re: [ALL] PORT documents for internal review - 1/2
> > Sender: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
> > 
> > 
> > > The following documents are submitted to the working group 
> > for internal
> > > review:
> > > 
> > > (A) SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification (2004-12-17 version)
> > > http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/2004-12-17.html
> > > 
> > > (B) SKOS Core Guide (2004-11-25 version)
> > > http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/guide/2004-11-25.html
> > > 
> > > (C) Quick Guide to Publishing a Thesaurus on the Semantic 
> > Web (2004-11-17
> > > version)
> > > http://www.w3.org/2004/03/thes-tf/primer/2004-11-17.html
> > > 
> > > The nominated reviewers for these documents are:
> > > 
> > > Mark van Assem (on behalf of Guus Schreiber)
> > > Tom Baker
> > > 
> > > Reviews should be posted to this list by 10 January 2005.
> > 
> > My review focuses on Document B -- the 40-page overview of SKOS
> > Core -- though my comments have implications for the other two.
> > 
> > Overall, this is excellent, careful work.  I want to say
> > this up-front because, after a close reading of the document,
> > I end up raising quite a few points of detail.
> > 
> > My second posting will raise points of wording and
> > presentation.  This posting covers three more fundamental
> > issues:
> > 
> > 1. Reaching the intended audience
> > 
> >    As discussed in the telecon of 16 December [1]:
> >    >   The guide is human-readable intro - how to use it:
> >    >   features of vocabulary, with examples.  In the last
> >    >   telecon, we agreed to make it accessible to non-RDF
> >    >   people, but proved to be nearly impossible to write -
> >    >   would have been extremely long.  Rather, we restrict
> >    >   the scope to people who basically understand RDF,
> >    >   then if we want to present porting issues, we will
> >    >   do that in a separate doc which explains basic
> >    >   concepts (not yet written).  From there, we can
> >    >   look at developing add'nl method notes.
> > 
> >    A separate document on "basic concepts" will be a useful
> >    thing, but in the meantime a bit more introduction is
> >    perhaps needed in the SKOS Core Guide itself.
> > 
> >    The Guide does assume that the reader is RDF-literate.
> >    However, it presents that RDF in the form of RDF/XML
> >    serialization syntax.  While the Introduction emphasizes
> >    that SKOS Core is not "an XML syntax for concept schemes",
> >    this is done to make the point that N3/Turtle or N-Triple
> >    could be used just as well -- and not to reinforce the
> >    more basic point that "what is fundamental to RDF is the
> >    graph model" [RDF-PRIMER].
> > 
> >    One or two simple node-arc diagrams right at the beginning
> >    of the draft might be a simple and readable way to present
> >    the "basic concepts" behind SKOS.
> > 
> >    For example, the example concept from the Quick Guide
> >    ("Economic cooperation") illustrates in itself some basic
> >    features of SKOS Core: skos:Concepts, related to other
> >    broader or narrower skos:Concepts, with preferred versus
> >    alternate labels.  Presenting this one example as a simple
> >    diagram with labeled arcs and nodes could be a good way
> >    to present the basic idea.
> > 
> >    The introductory message, then, could convey something
> >    like the following message:
> > 
> >       Thesauri represent semantic relations among concepts
> >       [insert "Economic cooperation" example here, along with
> >       citations for BS8723, ISO 2788, and other thesaurus
> >       standards].
> > 
> >       Here is how the example looks as an RDF graph using the
> >       SKOS Core vocabulary [inser a node-and-arc diagram here].
> > 
> >       If your vocabulary has a similar structure, you will
> >       be interested in reading this Guide because it will
> >       tell you how you can express your vocabulary in, or
> >       translate your vocabulary into, an RDF model using the
> >       SKOS Core vocabulary.  Using the RDF model will allow
> >       your vocabulary to be linked to or merged with other
> >       data structures by RDF applications.
> > 
> > 2. What SKOS Core "is"
> > 
> >    The Abstract begins:
> > 
> >         "SKOS Core is a supporting RDF Vocabulary..."
> > 
> >    To me, this choice of wording raises several questions
> >    that are not really answered in the rest of the text.
> > 
> >    Someone familiar with RDF -- the target audience of
> >    the draft -- might correctly take an "RDF Vocabulary"
> >    to be something like "a vocabulary of terms usable as
> >    Properties and Classes in the RDF model".  In the absence
> >    of a definition, however, the reader could confuse it with
> >    "The RDF Vocabulary" ("a set of URI references in the rdf:
> >    namespace" [2]).  Some readers, concluding that SKOS Core is
> >    only relevant to people who are already "using RDF", might
> >    stop reading right here.  A definition of "RDF vocabulary"
> >    up-front, with a pointer to [3], could address this.
> > 
> >    But is the SKOS Core Guide really primarily about a
> >    vocabulary?  Or is it really about a particular data
> >    model based, in turn, on the RDF model?  Reducing SKOS
> >    Core to the vocabulary alone seems a bit like reducing
> >    RDF to "The RDF Vocabulary".  Saying that SKOS Core is a
> >    "supporting" vocabulary makes one ask: supporting what?
> > 
> >    Rather, describing SKOS Core as a "model" for expressing
> >    knowledge organization structures such as thesauri could
> >    perhaps correct this narrow perspective, shifting the
> >    reader's attention to the model of entities being described
> >    ("skos:Concepts" and relationships between them) and how
> >    the vocabulary "supports" that model.
> > 
> > 3. Ownership and maintenance of SKOS
> > 
> >    In the Vocabulary Management task force, we are trying to
> >    formulate (and illustrate) a best-practice guideline to
> >    the effect that vocabulary maintainers should "articulate
> >    and publish maintenance policies for the Terms and their
> >    URI references".  It is not clear from the documents (in
> >    particular the SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification) who
> >    is ultimately taking responsibility for the maintenance
> >    of the SKOS vocabulary.  Is W3C implicitly assuming that
> >    responsibility?  I'm wondering to what extent the SWBPD
> >    working group needs to address these questions as a basis
> >    for any recommendations it may want to issue.
> > 
> >    As a related issue, the Vocabulary Spec is generated from
> >    the RDF representation, implying that the RDF representation
> >    is canonical and the Web document is derived.  Yet it is
> >    the Web document that we are reviewing, presumably to
> >    assign the Web document some sort of status in the W3C
> >    context.  Which representation is primarily the object of
> >    maintenance?  This relationship between the Web document
> >    and the underlying RDF representation should perhaps be
> >    addressed in the Introduction.
> > 
> > [1] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Dec/0099.html:
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/
> 
> -- 
> 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 Tuesday, 25 January 2005 16:13:26 UTC