- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:11:59 +0100
- To: Alexandre Passant <alexandre.passant@deri.org>
- CC: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net, SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Hi Alex, > Hi, > > On 4 Nov 2009, at 00:56, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I want to get some broader feedback and opinion on this question. >> >> There is a use case where an external dataset is modelled in SKOS, and >> we want to map it to DBpedia. Something like: >> >> <http://mydataset/433256> >> a skos:Concept; >> owl:sameAs <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Michelle_Obama>; >> . >> >> I've used owl:sameAs here. Now the problem is that my:433256 is a >> skos:Concept, while dbp:Michelle_Obama is a foaf:Person. I wonder >> wether that's a problem. I can't see any immediate contradiction >> arising from that, but I'm uncertain. >> >> Another option would be to use skos:closeMatch or skos:exactMatch, but >> these are intended for use between skos:Concepts, while I'm trying to >> connect a skos:Concept to a foaf:Person. >> >> The main question, I guess, is wether people in the DBpedia project >> would consider the assertion >> >> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Michelle_Obama> a skos:Concept . >> >> to be acceptable or erroneous, or wether SKOS folks tell me that >> skos:Concept is obviously disjoint from foaf:Person. > > I think that is the question that should be answered here. > The SKOS spec says: "A SKOS concept can be viewed as an idea or notion; > a unit of thought. However, what constitutes a unit of thought is > subjective, and this definition is meant to be suggestive, rather than > restrictive." > > So, do the SKOS implementors consider that, while subjective, anything > can be allowed to go under skos:Concept ? > If not, shouldn't a disjunction be introduced in SKOS to prevent that ? Do you want us to create such an axiom for all the classes that are disjoint with skos:Concept? That's a tough requirement ;-) Antoine > > I find all these SKOS properties more that useful, but that subjectivity > regarding skos:Concept is imo an issue - I personally limit the use of > skos:Concept to non-physical objects / abstract notions, but since > that's subjective, someone else will use it for anything, e.g. > foaf:Person, and may lead to disagreement between us - and related > applications. > > Thanks, > > Alex. > > >> >> I know that this is a complex issue, so I'm not really looking for a >> "right" or "wrong" answer. I'm more interested in getting all the pros >> and cons and pitfalls and caveats on the table, so please, if you have >> any opinion on the issue, I want to hear it. >> >> I'm cc'ing Pat Hayes, because he said he's interested in that kind of >> question. >> >> All the best and thanks for your time, >> Richard >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Linked Data Technologist • Linked Data Research Centre >> Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI), NUI Galway, Ireland >> http://linkeddata.deri.ie/ >> skype:richard.cyganiak >> tel:+353-91-49-5711 >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> 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 > > -- > Dr. Alexandre Passant > Digital Enterprise Research Institute > National University of Ireland, Galway > :me owl:sameAs <http://apassant.net/alex> . > > > > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 5 November 2009 21:12:38 UTC