RE: Astounding silence about same-ness Re: Concept Equivalence, IFPs, skos:subjectIndicator and owl:sameAs

Hello Bernard,
 

<snip/>
> > I'll profess complete ignorance on Topic Maps... but if things are
as 
> > you say, then presumably either: a topic can have no more than one 
> > subject
> >   
> That's exactly so : a topic represents exactly one subject, 
> two topics with the same subject should be merged.
> > or two topics with multiple subject that have at least one subject
in 
> > common must (necessarily) have all subjects in common!.
> >   
> Topics can't have multiple subjects, but they can have 
> multiple subject indicators (which all indicate the same subject).

Ok... so the relationship between a topic and a subject indicator is
functional.
That makes the example I tried to contrive very bogus.

<snip/>

> > With skos:subjectIndicator being an IFP:
> >
> > [I be guilty of skos abuse here - I don't know if our respective 
> > vacations are legitimate as skos:Concepts]
> >
> > :stuartVacation2006
> > 	a				skos:Concept;
> > 	skos:subjectIndicator	ex:YukonTerritory;
> > 	skos:subjectIndicator	ex:VancouverBC;
> > 	skos:subjectIndicator	ex:Canada;
> > 	skos:subjectIndicator	ex:SummerVacation.
> >   
> I think this is a completely incorrect use of 
> subjectIndicator. A subject indicator is not another concept, 
> as it seems to be in your examples.

FWIW I had intended that the object of each of these
skos:subjectIndicator statements be subject indicator documents that
clearly and unambigously convey what each indicated subject infact is.

> For :stuartVacation2006 
> it would be some resource making explicit for humans what you 
> mean by that concept, e.g. some Web page where you expose 
> where, when, how you took vacations in 2006. Maybe this 
> resource itself would have the other concepts as dc:subject.

So... in topic map terms... is a skos:Concept also a tm:Topic. I think
the answer is probaly yes.

From:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/3050/pubsubj-pt1-1.02-
cs.pdf

"Applications deal with subjects through formal representations using
symbols as proxies. The term topic is used for such symbols in this
document, in order to conform to Topic Maps terminology (other
formalisms, for example, RDF, use other names for what amounts to the
same thing). A topic is thus the representation, inside some
application, of a unique, clearly identified, and non-ambiguous
subject."

Which suggests that the 'symbol' :stuartVacation (or rather the URI that
it is an abbreviation for) is a tm:Topic while whatever it refers to is
a tm:Subject (which may be any kind of thing, and could be abstract like
my 2006 summer holiday). An appropriate subject indicator (as you say)
would be a (single?) document that describes the subect in clear an
unambiguous terms. 

I question the single, because there could be multiple unambiguous
accounts of given subject and reaching common agreement that one was in
some sense primary over the others would be 'tricky'. It's almost as if
the subject indicator ought to be an intervening (possibly blank) node
off of which multiple accounts could be 'hung'.

> > :bernardVacation2006
> > 	a				skos:Concept;
> > 	skos:subjectIndicator	ex:<SomewhereElse>;
> > 	skos:subjectIndicator	ex:SummerVacation.
> >
> > the concepts of our respective summer vacations become one and the 
> > same,
> >   
> It's not the case if we both use proper subject indicators 
> are explained above. My Web page will not be yours, and the 
> concepts will keep distinct.

Ok... I've got the point (I think). skos:subjectIndicator is (or should
be) functional - though I remain mildly trouble about the potential for
multiple clear, independently fashioned and unamiguous accounts of the
same subject eg. Isaac Newton from the intro to the document referened
above.

> The real use case would be that we have both similar concepts 
> of vacation in our vocabulary, and to know how to express 
> that they attempt to conceptualize the same thing and we have 
> used each a subject indicator in our own language
> 
> stuart:Vacation     skos:subjectIndicator       
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacation
> bernard:Vacances   skos:subjectIndicator    
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacances
> 
> ... and back to the primitive issue

Ok... that would be a case of two (or more) clear and unambigous
accounts of the same subject.

> > I strikes me that making skos:subjectIndicator an IFP is probably a 
> > mistake. Removing that assertion would certainly remove the
potential 
> > to construe unintended equivalences.
> >   
> I agree.
>
> > I think I should try to understand Topic Maps (an merging of Topic 
> > Maps) a bit better.
> >   
> Good luck :-)

Thanks ;-)

> Bernard

Stuart
--

Received on Wednesday, 8 November 2006 10:53:29 UTC