- From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:45:41 +0100
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>, dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net, SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Hello all Some precisions before anyone gets carried away :-) The latest SKOS draft Peter mentions is certainly the editor's draft at http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20080118 This is only an editor's draft and has no official status whatsoever The skos:subject property is mentioned as "at risk", which means its relevancy is questioned. It's not *deprecated* so far AFAIK, but under discussion. There are two related "open issues" on this http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/77 http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/48 <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/77> I take, as Antoine (Isaac), that the later is a generalization of the former : "The SKOS model should contain mechanisms to attach a given resource (e.g. corresponding to a document) to a concept the resource is about, e.g. to query for the resources described by a given concept." I think this is obvious. Otherwise what is the point of SKOS altogether? The property skos:subject was (and still is) candidate to support this mechanism. As has been pointed in e.g., the other ongoing thread on dbpedia list [1], the term "subject" can appear to be too specific in meaning to cover all cases of linking a resource to a concept, and strange in some borderline cases. But it's more a question of terminology than a question of need of such a generic property. In the referenced thread, I think the criticism should be more interpreted as a weird construction of Wikipedia categories (some are very weird indeed) than as a mistake in using skos:subject in DBpedia to represent the Wikipedia categorisation. My take on this is that such a generic property is needed and should not be deprecated. Since a lot of people (including dbpedia folks, but not only) have started using skos:subject in the above quoted very generic sense, and I think they are OK to do so, it should be kept as is. But it should be put in best practices that whenever you want to specify an indexing property, you define a specific subproperty of skos:subject. SKOS specification should stress and explain what the *functional* semantics of this property are, and are not. Simply to *retrieve resources* indexed on a concept. Not to infer any specific semantics on the indexing link. Just : "If you are interested in this concept, here are resources dealing about it in some way". No more, no less. If you want to be more specific, use a specific subproperty. Bernard [1] http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=834575810801231916m4729f854lf34f47fe9af0a746%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=dbpedia-discussion Richard Cyganiak a écrit : > Peter, > > On 24 Jan 2008, at 05:41, Peter Ansell wrote: > >> I am new to this list, but in a discussion on another list we were >> discussing the use of the skos:subject and related items, something >> which dbpedia has invested in heavily to represent the wikipedia >> category system. >> >> The latest SKOS draft has deprecated these properties. >> > > Can you give us some background on this decision? I have a hard time > understanding why this step was taken. > > >> What will dbpedia use instead? >> > > I don't know. Do you have any suggestions? > > Richard > > > -- *Bernard Vatant *Knowledge Engineering ---------------------------------------------------- *Mondeca** *3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France Web: www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com> ---------------------------------------------------- Tel: +33 (0) 871 488 459 Mail: bernard.vatant@mondeca.com <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> Blog: Leçons de Choses <http://mondeca.wordpress.com/>
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2008 12:45:54 UTC