- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:54:33 +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 14:13, Mikael Nilsson wrote: >> 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. > > What is the basis for that assertion? > > Dublin Core has been very careful in using the word resource to > indicate > that it is, in fact, applicable to more or less anything. We have a skos:Concept for “History of the Internet”. We have Tim Berners-Lee, the person, as a resource. The question is how to relate them. Saying that the “subject” of the person “Tim Berners-Lee” is “History of the Internet” is a bit of a stretch. My problem is not with the term “resource”, but with the term “subject”. I don't doubt that DC properties, in general, are applicable to all kinds of resources. But some sorts of resources don't really have subjects. Best, Richard > > > /Mikael > >> >> 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 >>> >> >> > -- > <mikael@nilsson.name> > > Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose >
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2008 14:54:56 UTC