W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > November 2008

Re: RE : SCOS?

From: Sue Ellen Wright <sellenwright@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 09:08:34 -0500
Message-ID: <e35499310811030608o3b3327f7wa0ab2b02f211facf@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Antoine Isaac" <Antoine.Isaac@kb.nl>
Cc: "Aida Slavic" <aida@acorweb.net>, Skos <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Dear colleagues,
No, we are not using OWL to represent terminologies. We are using OWL-DL to
represent terminological metadata. I don't have time to go into detail, and
it's entirely possible that when the most recent version of SKOS shakes out
we will want to take another look. We are using a lot of DL features to
express various relations that exist in our complex data structures, so we
aren't just looking at conceptual relations -- we are trying to express data
modeling relations as well.
We recognize a vast array of relations in terminological databases -- one
colleague has document several hundred different types.
Best regards
Sue Ellen

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Antoine Isaac <Antoine.Isaac@kb.nl> wrote:

>  Hi Sue Ellen, Aida et al,
> Thanks for the discussion. It won't be a surprise that I favor keeping to
> SKOS myself ;-)
> A quick question to Sue Ellen, though: are you really using OWL to directly
> represent your terminologies? Or to put it differently, are you creating
> terms as direct instances of owl:Classes, or as instances of your own
> classes (e.g. mymodel:Term)
> Because in a way, SKOS uses OWL (the SKOS model is defined as an OWL
> ontology). And I would expect other (terminology) models to be positioned at
> the same epistemological level, so I'm a bit surprised that you constrast
> your approach and the SKOS one so strongly...
> Antoine
> -------- Message d'origine--------
> De: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org de la part de Sue Ellen Wright
> Date: sam. 01/11/2008 02:13
> : Aida Slavic
> Cc: Skos
> Objet : Re: SCOS?
> Hi, All,
> At the risk of too many layers ...
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Aida Slavic <aida@acorweb.net> wrote:
> >
> > Sue,
> >
> > Thanks for your comment - it is well worth pondering about. We only need
> to
> > know how little we know about cognitive processes (and cognitive
> linguistics
> > and semantics) to be very careful about SCOS/SKOS issue.
> >
> > Maybe SKOS may serve theoretically for : a)language-purposed vocabulary
> b)
> > subject indexing vocabulary and even c) store 'document vocabulary' (i.e.
> > natural language of the document itself) d) real world representation
> ... Actually, we're finding that we need to go to OWL DL for a lot of what
> we do in language-purposed  terminology because we need some extra
> functionalities, but by the same token, I haven't had time to go back and
> look at some the "new stuff" to see if we could go back. I'm afraid I'm
> sort
> of enamored of DL at this point! Our colleagues in lexicography (which is
> word centered and more complex) are using Full Owl + rule constraints.
> >
> > But I have many doubts that plunging into this would help.
> > SKOS' started with the easiest task: the one of supporting subject
> indexing
> > languages: a little formalized sets of well organized vocabularies. This
> is
> > where we all know it can make a difference and bring many benefits very
> > quickly and with least effort. But even here it seems awfully hard to
> agree
> > about basics
> >
> And this is where SKOS is strong. I'm not convinced that it should be
> stretched because as noted, why add stuff to replicate OWL DL or other
> solutions if those solutions are working just fine for other areas of
> activity. I didn't go into all of this in my email, but maybe it needs to
> be
> said. I'm very much inclined to think that the complexities of concept
> modeling on the epistemological may be closer to some of these other
> solutions than they are to subject-purposed vocabularies.
> > that I call Knowledge Representation Resources. Howard has just
> > broadened that view. Some in this group will have heard me invoke the
> > distinction by Svenonius and Doug Tudhope between subject-purposed
> > vocabulary and language-purposed vocabulary -- are we talking about
> > /resources about butterflies /(in which case our instances are
> > books/articles/webpages/etc. that have butterflies as their object of
> > study), or are we talking about /butterflies/ (mostly beautiful,
> > graceful insects that feed on flower nectar, etc.). Or in Howard's case,
> And what an important distinction this is, indeed.
> > KOS such as thesauri, documentary classification and subject heading
> > systems are created for mediation of knowledge. They are 'interpreters'
> of
> > recorded knowledge and external to documents as carriers of recorded
> > knowledge.
> >
> > They have three sides to them:
> >
> > 1) They "mediate"  and control relationships between thoughts (concepts)
> > and language - so at first glance they appear to be the same as any other
> > language
> > But their function and strength is precisely in their being
> > detached/separate from the language of the document itself and from the
> > language user would use when searching.
> Absolutely. I couldn't agree more.
> >
> > 2) they are formalised systems based on certain convention (scientific,
> > educational, cultural...) in order to achieve predictability. They
> interpret
> > language terms within a certain knowledge context: certain subject,
> > scientific point of view, task, audience or disciplines, knowledge field
> > etc. Hence the 'same' concept in one KOS will have different
> > broader/narrower relationships in different KOS...
> >
> > 3) they may also contain 'vocabulary aparatus' to express relationship
> > between the external (objective?! no Popper intended) knowledge and the
> one
> > recorded in the document, or its presentation in a given document  - as
> well
> > as relationship between knowledge and document as a carrier
> >
> > So for people using SKOS would best serve its purpose of supporting this
> > kind of resource discovery by allowing us to manage links between: KOS >
> > document-metadata > document itself,  independently.
> > For the first phase of SKOS some of these things above were not relevant
> -
> > but when OWL got involved then the purpose/task, function and
> > information/metadata architecture became very important.
> > And somehow I don't have the feeling that there is a clear understanding
> of
> > the above.
> >
> > It is going to be very interesting to see how discussion on language
> > vocabulary (morphology, syntax, grammar) would go should we decide to
> follow
> > SCOS part :-)
> We presented a paper on our decision to use OWL DL for language-purposed
> terminology at LREC, which prompted someone to ask me "to please send my
> criticism of SKOS" -- to which I responded that I have none to speak of,
> that I think SKOS is highly useful and powerful for the precise purpose for
> which it is being designed. My choice of OWL DL has everything to do with
> what I have concluded is a different purpose and doesn't reflect any
> inherent weakness in SKOS. The confusion arises in the fact that we all
> share certain terms and ways of addressing issues, but in the different
> approaches, those terms, their underlying concepts, and the framework in
> which they function reside on different conceptual and methodological
> planes.
> Best regards
> Sue Ellen
> >
> >
> > Aida
> >
> >
> >
> --
> Sue Ellen Wright
> Institute for Applied Linguistics
> Kent State University
> Kent OH 44242 USA
> sellenwright@gmail.com
> Terminology management: There is unfortunately no cure for terminology; you
> can only hope to manage it. (Kelly Washbourne)

Sue Ellen Wright
Institute for Applied Linguistics
Kent State University
Kent OH 44242 USA

Terminology management: There is unfortunately no cure for terminology; you
can only hope to manage it. (Kelly Washbourne)
Received on Monday, 3 November 2008 14:29:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:45:50 UTC