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

RE: SKOS to RDFS/OWL ontology mapping

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:07:00 +0100
Message-ID: <F5839D944C66C049BDB45F4C1E3DF89DEE9E05@exchange31.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: "Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: "Mikael Nilsson" <mini@nada.kth.se>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

Hi Bernard,

I think your paper is missing the notion of 'naming'.

[4] defines 'subject' as 'the matter of a conversation or discussion'.  

Therefore a 'subject' is anything which can be *referred to*.

A 'resource' is defined at [1,2] as 'anything that might be identified by a URI'.  To me URIs are proper names [3].  

Therefore a 'resource' is anything which might be named.

Therefore in the context of our discussion, 'subject' = 'resource'.  This is what the RDFTM guys are saying too, I believe.

Therefore, the assertion you make in [4] that 'resources are representations of subjects' (... or more formally, 'for all r, such that resource(r), there exists s, such that subject(s) and representationOf(r,s)' ...) is false.

We do have different conventions for making *assertions*.  But the referent (subject) of a TM assertion (i.e. association or occurrence) can be the same as the referent (subject) of an RDF assertion (i.e. triple/statement).

To talk about an OWL ontology or an RDF graph or an ER model or a topic map as a 'representation' makes no sense to me.  An OWL ontology consists of a set of assertions, just as a database or a topic map or an RDF graph does.

That's as far as I've got ... gonna go take philosophy 101 somewhere :)

Cheers,

Al.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#index
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#def-resource
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_names
[4] http://perso.wanadoo.fr/universimmedia/hubjects.pdf

---
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: Bernard Vatant [mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com]
> Sent: 24 June 2005 10:09
> To: Dan Brickley; Miles, AJ (Alistair)
> Cc: Mikael Nilsson; public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Subject: RE: SKOS to RDFS/OWL ontology mapping
> 
> 
> 
> Not to re-activate this thread here - just FYI
> 
> I've pushed a little further my reflexion about this issue, 
> and come out with the notion
> of "hubject", a concatenation of "hub" and "subject". Why hub 
> rather than map? See
> http://perso.wanadoo.fr/universimmedia/hubjects.pdf
> 
> Comments welcome, directly to me, or at:
> http://universimmedia.blogspot.com/2005/06/introducing-hubjects.html
> 
> Thanks for your attention
> 
> Bernard
> 
> ----------------------------------
> Bernard Vatant
> Mondeca Knowledge Engineering
> bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
> (+33) 0871 488 459
> 
> http://www.mondeca.com
> http://universimmedia.blogspot.com
> ----------------------------------
> 
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]De la part de Dan Brickley
> > Envoyé : mercredi 15 juin 2005 16:56
> > À : Miles, AJ (Alistair)
> > Cc : Bernard Vatant; Mikael Nilsson; public-esw-thes@w3.org
> > Objet : Re: SKOS to RDFS/OWL ontology mapping
> >
> >
> >
> > Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:
> >
> > >Hi all,
> > >
> > >I think we need to stay practical here and focus on the 
> use cases (or we'll be
> > here until the end of existence :).
> > >
> > >Danbri's original use case is something like this (Danbri 
> please correct me if
> > I'm wrong):
> > >
> > >Blogger A uses some category C to categorise blog items.
> > >
> > >Blogger B uses some category D to categorise blog items.
> > >
> > >Blogger's A and B realise that categories C and D are 
> really about the same
> > thing, and want to express that so that both their blog 
> feeds can be harvested
> > and sensibly merged.
> > >
> > >The inverse property pair 'skos:it' and 'skos:as' were 
> originally proposed in
> > response to this use case.
> > >
> > >I.e. blogger A says 'C skos:it X' and blogger B says 'D 
> skos:it X' and they
> > both live happily every after.
> > >
> > >
> > You missed out one more part. That we have some other data, 
> expressed
> > in non-SKOS RDF. For example, consider X being some Person, 
> with claims
> > about that Person described in FOAF and related vocabs. Or 
> X being some
> > place, and lat/long info, and other geo/mapping data. Etc. 
> Etc. In each
> > case,
> > we are gaining value (hopefully :) by binding together 
> information expressed
> > in term of the thing ITself, against information associated with its
> > representation AS a SKOS 'concept'.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 24 June 2005 13:07:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:45:20 UTC