- From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:28:55 +0200
- To: "Sue Ellen Wright" <sellenwright@gmail.com>, "Laurent.Romary@loria.fr" <laurent.romary@loria.fr>, "Alan Melby" <melbyak@yahoo.com>, "Patricia K. Cossard" <pcossard@umd.edu>, "Monte George" <dracalpha@earthlink.net>, "Pet, Mandy S." <mpet@mitre.org>, "Gil Francopoulo" <gil.francopoulo@wanadoo.fr>
- Cc: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, "Michel Biezunski" <mb@infoloom.com>
- Message-ID: <GOEIKOOAMJONEFCANOKCIEGKHBAA.bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Hi Sue Ellen
Thanks for the positive feedback. I'm glad you exactly captured the
intention.
Now let's wait for feedback from the RDF techies to see how it flies from an
engineering viewpoint ...
Cheers
Bernard
-----Message d'origine-----
De : public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]De la part de Sue Ellen Wright
Envoyé : vendredi 21 octobre 2005 15:57
À : Bernard Vatant; Laurent.Romary@loria.fr; Alan Melby; Patricia K.
Cossard; Monte George; Pet, Mandy S.; Gil Francopoulo
Cc : public-esw-thes@w3.org; Michel Biezunski
Objet : Re: Proposal for a SPEK vocabulary RE: Subjects and perspectives
in SKOS : the jack of all trades ...
Hi, Bernard et al.,
I very much like the notion of the "hubject" and think it could actually
be a potential solution in several venues. I see its utility in the area of
the LMF standard we're workon for various electronic lexical resources as
well where we have numerous perspectives to deal with. This approach could
provide us with the pragmatic bridging mechanism that some of us have been
abstractly imagining without coming up with a firm solution. It also makes
for an elegant representational model, which makes it easier to sell to the
various communities! It''s potentially more like a traffic hub (rotary,
circus, roundabout, whatever one's region calls it) because it could be used
to facilitate the flow of data from one community perspective to another.
Bye for now
Sue Ellen
On 10/21/05, Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> wrote:
Hello all
To put in a more formal way what I have in mind about perspectives and
aspects, I released
a proposal for a an extension of SKOS vocabulary, temptatively called
SPEK [1], at
http://www.mondeca.com/lab/bernard/spek.rdf
I've deliberately hi-jacked the SKOS namespace by using
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/spek#
It's still very rough, but I hope is simple enough to carry the message.
An aspect uses a subset of the description of a resource relevant to a
certain
perspective.
A perspective defines classes of resources and properties which are used
by aspects using
it.
The examples given are just ... examples, they don't pretend to define
in any absolute way
what is a "simple thesaurus" or a "simple taxonomy" or a "simple
terminology". At the
opposite, they provide a way for any other community of users, or set of
applications, to
specify what they understand and manage.
Comments welcome
Bernard
[1] SPEK is not supposed to be an acronym, it is the Indo-European root
for "aspect",
"perspective" and others like "species", "scope", etc ...
See http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=spek
That said, any meaningful expansion is welcome :)
----------------------------------
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 Benjamin Nowack
> Envoyé : vendredi 21 octobre 2005 10:44
> À : public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Objet : Re: Subjects and perspectives in SKOS : the jack of all trades
> ...
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> not sure if I completely understood the current discussion,
> but if the proposal is to change
>
> [[
> #myConcept a skos:Concept;
> skos:prefLabel "my concept" .
> ]]
>
> to something more like
>
> [[
> #myConcept a skos:Concept;
> skos:term [
> a skos:Term;
> skos:termLabel "my concept";
> skos:termType "preferred";
> ...
> .
> ] .
> ]]
>
> (i.e. some sort of middle node between concepts and their
> lexical representations), I'd rather prefer the current model.
> I can see the utility of the 2nd approach for certain use cases,
> (and in fact I proposed something similar for notes some months
> ago) but apart from requiring a more or less complete re-design of
> SKOS a couple of weeks before the whole initiative ends, I also
> think it'd slow down SKOS' deployment.
>
> I always considered SKOS as being targetted at non-pro info
> organizers (thus *Simple* KOS), and it is actually seen as a
> candidate to bring balance to the force, err, semweb technology
> to the masses. The current "core" design facilitates the
> implementation of editors and efficient SPARQL-based browsers,
> and also the upgrading of things such as blog categories etc.
> to a machine-friendly format.
>
> Just my 1.5 cents, I may well have missed the whole point of this
> thread, in this case I apologize for the blather.
>
> benjamin
>
> --
> Benjamin Nowack
> Chief Procrastination Officer
>
> Kruppstr. 100
> 45145 Essen, Germany
> http://www.bnode.org/
>
>
> On 20.10.2005 16:29:14, Sue Ellen Wright wrote:
> >Bernard wrote:
> >- 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.
> > This is precisely what I envision as well. What I'd love to see is a
means
> >by which we could mutually "get at" concept-related information
embedded in
> >other "perspectives" (which I often refer to as belonging to
different
> >communities of practice). Even just in the terminology community,
we've
> >identified multiple communities of practice. And we all have more to
gain in
> >the long run from gentle(wo)manliness than discord because arguing
about
> >perspective is about as useful as arguing about religion or sexual
> >preference -- it's a synch that we would never all agree on a single
view,
> >and we'd end up losing a lot in the long run if we even tried.
> > Bye for now
> >Sue Ellen
> >
> > On 10/20/05, Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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/EML200
5Bi
> >ezunski01.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
> >> ----------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >Sue Ellen Wright
> >Institute for Applied Linguistics
> >Kent State University
> >Kent OH 44242 USA
> >sellenwright@gmail.com
> >swright@kent.edu
> > sewright@neo.rr.com
> >
>
--
Sue Ellen Wright
Institute for Applied Linguistics
Kent State University
Kent OH 44242 USA
sellenwright@gmail.com
swright@kent.edu
sewright@neo.rr.com
Received on Friday, 21 October 2005 14:29:41 UTC