- From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 17:08:21 +0200
- To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
- Cc: "Michel Biezunski" <mb@infoloom.com>
Hello all Browsing all those very interesting ongoing threads about possible extensions of SKOS, relations with OWL, types of notes, terms-as-concepts, relevancy to terminology, etc ... keeps bringing me back to the notion of *perspective* as currently explored by Michel Biezunski [1], which I'm currently trying to bring along with my own current ramblings [2]. In the following, the *highlighted words* are used according to Biezunski's definition. Or at least they try to. Michel is in cc and will correct wherever I can get it wrong. According to Biezunski's terminology, a skos:Concept is a *proxy* for some *subject*, as any URI used in RDF is. The subject expressed by this proxy is in SKOS some abstract concept, likely to be expressed otherwise in many specific formal or unformal ways, in so many different schemes (thesaurus, taxonomy, ontology, terminology, ...) using so many different languages (SKOS, OWL, UML ...) and matching representation rules, and those expressions used in so many ways, for so many different purposes, in so many different contexts. A combination of all of those defines a *perspective* on the subject/concept. It's still unclear to me up to where a perspective on a skos:Concept can extend, were it to be defined. It could include at least the rdf:Description, and/or all related skos:Concepts in the same skos:ConceptScheme, or go as far as including this complete scheme, and this is certainly not the end of the story, since a useful perspective should certainly also include the purpose, ways, rules and context of use. In any case, this opens different interesting questions. The same URI can be used in different skos:Concept descriptions. So it has to be clarified if the proxy for the concept is the URI or one of its rdf:Description. The same skos:Concept can belong to, or be used in, a variety of perspectives. Not only because it can belong to various skos:ConceptScheme(s), but because each of those schemes can be used in different contexts, for different purposes, and in different ways : indexing and classification (which seems to be SKOS primary purpose), but also text mining and knowledge extraction, support for translation and publication tools ... Among all possible properties of a skos:Concept, some are only relevant to certain perspectives. Take for example the various kinds of notes, or properties on labels, or lexical properties of terms ... What does that lead us to? Interest for SKOS has attracted a variety of users with different perspectives (and that is really really good), each of them pushing gently (only gentle(wo)men here so far, very much appreciated) to allow the language to express, inside the same description of a single skos:Concept any other property relevant to their respective perspectives, at the risk of making at the end of the day such a description, as Stella rightly pointed, the jack of all trades and the master of none. Practically speaking, that means we are certainly at a point where SKOS should - either "close its scope", by specifying as much as possible in which kind of perspectives a skos:Concept is supposed to be used, and stick to the properties relevant to such perspectives. - or provide a way to express various perspectives, their respective context, purpose, rules, and the way to "hub" them (this is where hubjects could be relevant). The latter option if of course my favourite, even if much less obvious, it's certainly a winner in the long run. Enough for today. If there is some interest expressed in that, I can come up with more formal ideas about it. Cheers Bernard [1] http://www.mulberrytech.com/Extreme/Proceedings/html/2005/Biezunski01/EML2005Biezunski01.h tml [2] http://www.google.com/search?q=hubject ---------------------------------- Bernard Vatant Mondeca Knowledge Engineering bernard.vatant@mondeca.com (+33) 0871 488 459 http://www.mondeca.com http://universimmedia.blogspot.com ----------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2005 15:08:59 UTC