- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:08:42 +0000
- To: Mikael Nilsson <mikael@nilsson.name>
- Cc: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>, dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net, SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
On 24 Jan 2008, at 13:36, Mikael Nilsson wrote: >> The problem with skos:subject at the moment is this: The Core Guide >> gives the impression that the domain of skos:subject is documents >> only. But there is no explicit domain declared in the vocabulary >> definition. Furthermore, several parties (e.g. DBpedia) have a clear >> need for a property that relates non-document resources to >> skos:Concepts. >> >> I think there are three options for resolving this: >> >> A) Clarify that the domain of skos:subject is indeed any resource, >> and >> that the term “subject” is used loosely here. >> >> B) Clarify that the domain of skos:subject is documents only, and >> introduce a new super-property of skos:subject that explicitly covers >> any resource. It could be named for example skos:category, or >> skos:indexedAs. > > How about dcterms:subject? > > http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-subject Like skos:subject, dcterms:subject seems to be intended for use on documents, not people or cities. Hence it doesn't really meet DBpedia's requirements. Richard > > > It's not 100% clear to me that a new property is actually needed. > > /Mikael > >> >> C) Clarify that the domain of skos:subject is documents only, and >> leave the task of defining a property non-document resources to >> others. >> >> My preference would be, in that order, B), A), C). >> >> Thanks, >> Richard >> >> >> On 24 Jan 2008, at 12:45, Bernard Vatant wrote: >> >>> 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/> >>> >>> >> >> >> > -- > <mikael@nilsson.name> > > Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose >
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2008 14:08:55 UTC