RE : broader and broaderMatch... and BT???

Hi everyone,

I fully agree with Alistair, and am very curious to hear about what you (especially Johan, Christophe and Stephen, in this thread) would like to have as a solution!

I'd like to answer on Johan's first point in [1]: yes, these best practices/extension may be closely related to different types of KOSs to represent. You can find a a good example of this during our last comment period, if you look at issues 181 to 186 in [2].

Cheers,

Antoine

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2009Feb/0030.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/closed


-------- Message d'origine--------
De: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org de la part de Alistair Miles
Date: ven. 13/02/2009 15:41
À: Stephen Bounds
Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Objet : Re: broader and broaderMatch... and BT???
 

Hi Stephen,

Yes, this is a great idea. I brought this up withi the WG a while ago,
the WG has been focused on reaching candidate rec so hasn't discussed
it yet, but Tom Baker has been very diligent in making sure it stays
on the agenda.

Do you think a wiki page on the W3C site would be enough to act as a
"registry" of SKOS extensions? Or do we need more than that?

Cheers,

Alistair

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 07:52:26AM +1100, Stephen Bounds wrote:
>
> Hi Alistair,
>
> I agree that it's probably too late for changes to be considered to the  
> core SKOS language.  However, making the extensibility of SKOS  
> explicitly part of the standard could be a really important benefit.
>
> These days, there is a common trend in open-source packages (eg Drupal,  
> Firefox) for there to be a place for extensions to be registered by the  
> *owner* of the package (not just hoping that people can publish on their  
> own web pages and get a sufficient rank on Google).
>
> Doing this reduces the proliferation of competing extensions to some  
> extent and focuses community effort.
>
> SKOS sits somewhere between a technology (eg XML) and a software  
> package.  I believe it could benefit from a similarly endorsed community  
> extension model.
>
> This could be achieved simply by inserting something into the  
> Recommendation like: "The SKOS standard was built was extensibility in  
> mind.  A list of unofficial community extensions to SKOS can be found at  
> http://w3c.org/xxx."  Then, just give people a way for people to submit  
> their extensions to the SKOS group for listing on a W3C web page.
>
> Even better would be the ability to submit under an "extension" subtype  
> of the W3C, eg http://www.w3.org/2008/05/x-skos/iso#bt.  I can  
> appreciate that this might be politically difficult to arrange, however.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Stephen.
>
> Alistair Miles wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm afraid it is too late in the day to consider addition of new
>> vocabulary to SKOS in time for the Recommendation schedule. We are
>> approaching candidate recommendation, and any substantive changes
>> needed to be considered prior to last call.
>>
>> However, if there is consensus that this is an important requirement,
>> then I would be more than happy to provide an indication to future
>> working groups that this should be given further consideration.
>>
>> In the mean time, anybody is of course free to publish their own
>> extensions to SKOS, and to disseminate them as a community practice. I
>> anticipate that many important requirements may only be met through
>> third party extensions and usage conventions established within the
>> community. If anyone has any suggestions as to how we might best
>> support such community efforts, I'd love to hear them--it is on the
>> agenda for the SWDWG to consider community support, but we're a bit
>> short of effort at the moment.
>>
>> Personally, I don't find a need to introduce a sub-property of
>> skos:broader that is intended only for use within a single concept
>> scheme. I find skos:broader to be sufficient, when used in conjunction
>> with skos:inScheme. I also find skos:broader to correspond perfectly
>> well to the ISO notion of BT.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Alistair
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 03:17:01PM +0100, Christophe Dupriez wrote:
>>> I like this proposal !
>>>
>>> Is it reasonable to follow it for implementation?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Christophe
>>>
>>> Stephen Bounds a écrit :
>>>> Hi Christophe, Antoine and all,
>>>>
>>>> Personally I'm a fan of keeping SKOS terminology self-describing 
>>>> where  possible (and therefore would argue against using 
>>>> "BT"/"NT"/"RT"  within SKOS).
>>>>
>>>> A thought -- what about simply using:
>>>>
>>>>   skos:broadInScheme
>>>>   skos:narrowInScheme
>>>>   skos:relatedInScheme
>>>>
>>>> This would then follow a construction similar to skos:broadMatch 
>>>> and  match the terminology of existing vocab terms such as 
>>>> skos:inScheme.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> -- Stephen.
>>>>
>>>> Christophe Dupriez wrote:
>>>>> Dear Antoine,
>>>>>
>>>>> Reading this (and seing my (reasonable) difficulties to apply 
>>>>> SKOS to real life problems), I would like to insist that the 
>>>>> frame defined by previous ISO standards for thesauri be kept and 
>>>>> supplemented. This  may seem bottom-up compared to the apparent 
>>>>> top-down process to  define SKOS: it is alway better when 
>>>>> stalagmites join stalagtites !
>>>>>
>>>>> For my own stuff, I will implement:
>>>>>
>>>>> skos:semanticRelation
>>>>> |
>>>>> +- skos:related
>>>>> |   |
>>>>> |   +- ???:RT
>>>>> |   |  (disjoint from)
>>>>> |   +- skos:relatedMatch
>>>>> |
>>>>> +- skos:broaderTransitive (disjoint from related and narrowerTransitive)
>>>>> |   |
>>>>> |   +- skos:broader
>>>>> |       |
>>>>> |       +- ???:BT
>>>>> |       |  (disjoint from)
>>>>> |       +- skos:broadMatch
>>>>> |
>>>>> +- skos:narrowerTransitive (disjoint from related and broaderTransitive)
>>>>>     |
>>>>>     +- skos:narrower
>>>>>         |
>>>>>         +- ???:NT
>>>>>         |  (disjoint from)
>>>>>         +- skos:narrowMatch
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please note that "BT <union> broadMatch" does not cover "broader" 
>>>>>  because "broader" may cross scheme boundaries and "BT" cannot.
>>>>> If you add the concept of "subScheme" (micro-thesaurus), "BT" 
>>>>> should  not cross micro-thesaurus borders.
>>>>>
>>>>> With "RT", you can cross micro-thesaurus borders but not scheme   
>>>>> boundaries.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>> begin:vcard
>>> fn:Christophe Dupriez
>>> n:Dupriez;Christophe
>>> org:DESTIN inc. SSEB
>>> adr;quoted-printable:;;rue des Palais 44, bo=C3=AEte 1;Bruxelles;;B-1030;Belgique
>>> email;internet:Christophe.Dupriez@Destin.be
>>> title:Informaticien
>>> tel;work:+32/2/216.66.15
>>> tel;fax:+32/2/242.97.25
>>> tel;cell:+32/475.77.62.11
>>> note;quoted-printable:D=C3=A9veloppement de Syst=C3=A8mes de Traitement de l'Information
>>> x-mozilla-html:TRUE
>>> url:http://www.destin.be
>>> version:2.1
>>> end:vcard
>>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
Alistair Miles
Senior Computing Officer
Image Bioinformatics Research Group
Department of Zoology
The Tinbergen Building
University of Oxford
South Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3PS
United Kingdom
Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
Email: alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1865 281993