Re: [Dbpedia-discussion] Using DBpedia resources as skos:Concepts?

Hi Joachim,
> Sorry for causing some misunderstanding: My point was not that you 
> SHOULD use skos:Concept. What I rather wanted to say is that it does 
> no harm and that it's already in use for named entites. 
>  
> This point arises from the suggestion to use 
> skos:exactMatch/closeMatch. These properties are sub-sub-properties of 
> skos:semanticRelation, which entails that subject and object of these 
> properties are instances of skos:Concept (since skos:Concept are 
> domain and range for skos:semanticRelation).
For "concept-to-concept" relationship you are right.
> The reason why I prefer skos:exactMatch/closeMatch to the suggested 
> UMBEL properties is that, as an W3C Recommendation with a lot of 
> implementations already, SKOS  is more widespread (and maybe more 
> stable). So I expect better  immediate understandig and more tool 
> support for the skos properties. However, this may be the biased view 
> of a long-term thesaurus/KOS afficinado ...
It could be a reason why you would prefer the use of the SKOS terms, I 
am all for it.

The only problem is that we are talking about different use-cases here.

semanticRelation relates two concepts. However, this thread started by 
figuring out if it was making sense (advantages, disavantages) os 
relating a skos:Concept to a foaf:Person using owl:sameAs. This is the 
reason why the UMBEL properties have been listed here. So, we have 
different use-cases at hands:

(1) Individual-to-Individual sameness/likelihood relationship
(2) Class-to-Class sameness/likelihood relationship
(3) Class-to-Individual sameness/likelihood relationship
(4) Individual-to-Class sameness/likelihood relationship
(5) Class-to-Concept sameness/likelihood relationship
(6) Concept-to-Class sameness/likelihood relationship


Apparently that skos:semanticRelation would fall into the 
"Concept-to-Concept" sameness/likelihood relationship.

All of these are different usecases that get handled by different 
ontologies/projects.

SKOS is mostly relation to taxonomic relationships, so maybe (I am just 
making a supposition here) they are not interested in these other 
relationships that exists in UMBEL.

UMBEL is:

"UMBEL (Upper-level Mapping and Binding Exchange Layer) is a lightweight 
ontology for relating external ontologies and their classes to UMBEL 
subject concepts. UMBEL subject concepts are conceptually related 
together using the SKOS 1 and the OWL-Full 2 ontologies. They form a 
structural 'backbone' comprised of subject concepts and their semantic 
relationships. By linking external ontologies to this conceptual 
structure, we explode the domain of the linked classes by leveraging 
this conceptual structure. UMBEL's project Web site is at 
http://www.umbel.org.

UMBEL defines "subject concepts" as a distinct subset of the more 
broadly understood concept such as used in the SKOS/OWL-Full controlled 
vocabulary, conceptual graphs, formal concept analysis or the very 
general concepts common to many upper ontologies. We define subject 
concepts as a special kind of concept: namely, ones that are concrete, 
subject-related and non-abstract.

UMBEL contrasts subject concepts with abstract concepts and with named 
entities. Abstract concepts represent abstract or ephemeral notions such 
as truth, beauty, evil or justice, or are thought constructs useful to 
organizing or categorizing things but are not readily seen in the 
experiential world. Named entities are the real things or instances in 
the world that are themselves natural and notable class members of 
subject concepts. More detailed distinctions are provided under 
Terminology and Definitions below."


And the reason why its simple ontology describe this kind of properties.

But at the end, users decide :)


Thanks,


Take care,


Fred

Received on Thursday, 5 November 2009 18:13:03 UTC