- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:56:49 +0200
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- CC: Simon Spero <ses@unc.edu>, SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@talis.com>
Hi Dan, I think I buy all the naming arguments below. But since the Pandora box is re-opened, even though with strong warnings, I'll have one try :-) How about standsFor? You're using it yourself in the announcement, in fact... Otherwise: > (aside: a possibility here might be to declare foaf:focus a sub > property of inverse of dcterms:isReferencedBy) I'm not sure we should go that way: DC's property seems very bibliography-style citation-oriented... Cheers, Antoine > +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 08:57:26 UTC