- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:12:56 +0200
- To: Simon Spero <ses@unc.edu>
- Cc: SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@talis.com>
+cc: Leigh On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Simon Spero <ses@unc.edu> wrote: > Dan- > > can i suggest using a different word than focus, as this is term of art in > controlled vocabularies. It is used when referring to modified/specialized > "terms". Thanks for the feedback. It seems that words are like Internet domain names; all the good ones are taken! To understand the extent of the "it's already in use" problem, could I ask you to post a few sentences using 'focus' from the literature? Even one would help. Naming RDF terms is something of a nightmare, because RDF is designed to allow information to flow beyond its original comfort-zone; whatever we choose here will show up in all kinds of unexpected contexts, including the Web pages of various publishers. I originally liked the 'skos:it' (and skos:as inverse) since 'it' had the charm of being at least easy to spell and quick to type. However after bouncing 'it' around in discussions 'it' transpired that 'it' was a bit too clever for 'its' own good, as a name. The 'focus' name came from discussions with Leigh Dodds, who I Cc: here. Some of our notes are in http://wiki.foaf-project.org/w/term_focus (btw each FOAF term now has a Wiki page for annotations). > Possible labels that might work could be isReferredToBy ; SKOS concepts are > intentional-with-a-t, so reference is a natural label; > isFoafProxyForIntentionReferencedBySKOSConcept is awful ComputerDeutch. So I see the logic behind 'isReferredToBy', however I'm cautious for a few reasons. Firstly the inverse direction adds a level of confusion, so we'd want to have 'references', eg. "skos_3 :references thing_23". And since we're operating in the context of RDF, not to mention hypertext, there are plenty of other contexts in which 'references' gets used - mainly with documents. Which puts us in the awkward situation of deciding whether to re-use an existing more general purpose term that talks about reference; eg. http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/ has http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-isReferencedBy already --- "A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource." ... or if we proceed with a term that is explicitly for use with skos:Concept, we should expect to see it accidentally misused by anyone who is fumbling around looking for a nice term to use when one thing references, mentions, or identifies another thing. (aside: a possibility here might be to declare foaf:focus a sub property of inverse of dcterms:isReferencedBy) > Foaf person "Paul The Octopus" isReferredTo by SKOS Concept "#PTO1". > > Where "#PTO1" isSubjectOf "#document" "Decideabity and tractablity of > logical inference with binary serial octacles". > > (The halting problem has time complexity PTO(1) but other tasks may require > an infinite series of questions.) Saying that the concept *references* the real world entity seems a tiny bit strong anyway; I guess I'd say 'reference' with regard to the concept's documentation, or with regard to a use of the concept in some document. But at some level this is all metaphor anyhow; nothing is really 'focussing' either. I had hoped 'focus' was a word that came with relatively little baggage in this community and amongst Web technologists, since 'topic' and 'subject' are already heavily over-used. I think 'references' will prove too general/broad to use directly (people will immediately start applying it with document 'mentions' and hyperlinks), but I appreciate the feedback and suggestion. Same with Bernard's 'referent', even though yes the basic idea is that the concepts are proxying / standing in for / indirectly identifying / referring to some real world entities. cheers, Dan ps. Another terminology possible ingredient; in FOAF we have a property foaf:primaryTopic which points from a document to the thing the document is primarily about. It has an inverse, isPrimaryTopicOf too.
Received on Tuesday, 10 August 2010 08:13:29 UTC