W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > November 2009

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

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:29:49 -0500
Message-ID: <4AF3199D.4060800@openlinksw.com>
To: Neubert Joachim <J.Neubert@zbw.eu>
CC: Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@koeln.de>, SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
Neubert Joachim wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> 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).
> The great advantage of skos:exactMatch/closeMatch (over owl:sameAs) is 
> that their semantic doesn't smush the resources with all their 
> properties (like the administrative properties you mentioned).

What do you mean by "smush" are you referring to the union expansion 
that results from combing data from all the data sources in the 
owl:sameAs relation? I pose my question with the skos:exactMatch 
description page URL [1] for context. I see Transitivity and Symmetry, 
which are factors re. decision making by reasoners re: union expansion 
based on participants in the relation. Note, by "union expansion" I mean 
the union of all data associated with the data items in the relation.

Primarily, I just want clarification about "smushing",  relative to the 
property definition exposed by the skos:exactMatch URI,  more than 
anything else. Thus, far I've simply assumed that skos:exactMatch and 
owl:sameAs have similar implementation mechanics re. union expansion, 
but their use targets vary i.e. skos:exactMatch works better for Concept 
Schemes (where the world view assumes Named Entities e.g., "People" 
aren't Concepts) while owl:sameAs works better for Named Entities 
(people, places, and other typical real more things, so to speak).



> [SNIP]
> ..
> Cheers, Joachim
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Von:* Simon Reinhardt [mailto:simon.reinhardt@koeln.de]
> *Gesendet:* Do 05.11.2009 17:35
> *An:* Neubert Joachim
> *Cc:* Richard Cyganiak; dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net; 
> SKOS; Pat Hayes
> *Betreff:* Re: AW: [Dbpedia-discussion] Using DBpedia resources as 
> skos:Concepts?
> Hi
> Neubert Joachim wrote:
> > In my eyes, it's completely ok to use skos:exactMatch or skos:closeMatch
> > in a situation like this (I did it myself for the STW Thesaurus for
> > Economics mapping to dbpedia).
> > 
> > Thesauri and classifications are not restricted to abstract concepts.
> > Some thesauri deal explicitly with individual things, e.g. the widely
> > used Getty "Thesaurus of Geographic Names" or "Union List of Artist
> > Names". Other thesauri (like STW) have sections (or facets, as Leonard
> > put it) on geografic names along with others containing "pure" concepts.
> > SKOS, as I understand it, is intended to cover all this and to be used
> > beyond strict class hierarchies or class/individual dichotomies.
> While I agree that using real-world entities for classification is ok 
> I don't think this means you have to declare them to be 
> (skos:)concepts. The "has subject" relationship in FRBR [1] for 
> example can link a work to a concept but also to places, people, 
> events, other works, etc. So in this case you can use real-world 
> entities to classify the work (to state what its subjects are) but 
> that doesn't mean you declare all those entities to be conceptual.
> So in my eyes there's still value in keeping (skos:)concepts and other 
> things apart. Concepts to me are closer to classes than to 
> individuals. And as Dan pointed out concepts have administrative data 
> attached - they get created and changed etc. so they're basically 
> units of organisation.
> I'd therefore prefer using the UMBEL terms or something else for 
> aligning real-world entities and concepts.
> > By the way, some of the SKOS properties (especially the
> > prefLabel/altLabel/hiddenLabel semantics) can be useful in a broad range
> > of applications. Eg. dbpedia itself could be used as a great source for
> > synonym candidates by mapping the resources to skos:Concept and the
> > labels for dbpedia:redirect resources to skos:altLabel.
> Yup, it has a lot of useful annotation terms. They are all declared to 
> be annotation properties and deliberately don't have skos:Concept in 
> their domain. So you can use them on anything which is great!
> Regards,
>   Simon
> [1] http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr_current5.htm#5.2 - 
> scroll down to "5.2.3 Subject Relationships"
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
> Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Dbpedia-discussion mailing list
> Dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion



Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Thursday, 5 November 2009 18:30:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:45:59 UTC