- From: Simon Spero <ses@unc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 08:32:12 -0400
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@talis.com>, SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, Leo Sauermann <leo.sauermann@gnowsis.com>, Simon Spero <ses@unc.edu>
- Message-ID: <AANLkTikQL6+9Jx=TUSgcor7F-G87rVhg-Bcjgokc=jE6@mail.gmail.com>
I'm on the metro to SAA so this will be brief, but I think the phrase is in Z39.19 which is online at a url I could access if could operate my laptop with my feet :-) 3g signal is strong so I may try from the Evo. On Aug 10, 2010 4:34 AM, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org> wrote: > +Cc: Leigh > > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Leo Sauermann <leo.sauermann@gnowsis.com> wrote: >> uh, didn't Dan's mail begin with >> >> "we just published the new version" >> >> that implies - its fixed. comments to change it aren't helpful, I guess. > > We have a few mechanisms in hand here, to allow a little flexibility. > > Each term in the FOAF namespace has a vs:status property, whose values > were originally borrowed from Debian: 'unstable', 'testing', 'stable'. > To these we recently added a new option, 'archaic', which is a kinder > gentler and more Webby variant on deprecation. In a global system it > strikes me as a bit rude to deprecate RDF vocabulary unless there is > some strong reason to do so. People may have used it in good faith, > and if the meaning was clear, likely it still remains clear. But there > is of course a need to avoid vocabularies accumulating clutter over > the years, hence 'archaic' which is intended to indicate the term is > somehow old-fashioned or falling from widespread usage. I added retro > CSS sepia colouring to the spec too, and these terms are currently > sorted to show up last in the documentation. > > (see http://www.w3.org/2003/06/sw-vocab-status/note for draft note on this) > > A second mechanism is the SKOS spec itself. FOAF has always served a > dual role: as a language for describing, and as an experimental > testbed for Web-scale informational-linking. Unlike a W3C > Recommendation, the overhead for getting something into FOAF is fairly > low and informal. However if our implementation experience from > foaf:focus leads to a clearer idea of the design options, we could use > that to prepare a proposal for a new W3C property in SKOS itself. > > This is always a pragmatic balancing act. If, say, today someone came > up with a new property name suggestion which was universally applauded > for being clear, not already in use, etc etc., we could probably > switch foaf:focus with little cost and it might not even be worth > keeping the old name in the spec as 'archaic'. If however we leave it > there for say 3 months, and people start to publish data that uses it, > and write code and SPARQL queries and OWL axioms etc., then I think it > would be somewhat anti-social to completely delete the term from FOAF. > If we left it for two weeks and then had a great idea for a new name, > probably we could talk to all the relevant implementors, and see if > they were happy to switch. > >> you usually discuss before and then publish an ontology. Also, afaik its not >> very common and not good to change the property identifier after publishing. > > Yep, as I say it's a balancing act. When we started FOAF, the spec was > created by documenting terms that people used 'in the wild', which is > how we ended up with mess like firstName vs last_name. It is hard to > get implementation feedback on things that haven't - to some extent - > been documented. So that's how we ended up with the current rough > process, which is that things flagged 'unstable' have some risk of > being changed under your feet. That said of course it's best to avoid > needless change. > > With foaf:focus I think it's still unclear, but the discussion is more > than welcome, since even if foaf:focus stays as-is, debate here can > inform future plans for SKOS. If we get a bright idea for a new and > better property name in the very near future, it isn't too late to > switch and either mark 'focus' as archaic, or if nobody screams, even > consider deleting it in favour of the (currently theoretical) > better-named successor. > > But I would also like to see actual data and usage too, rather than be > stuck forever on the naming problem. The larger question of how > SKOS-like modelling and OWL-like modelling connect won't be addressed > by a single property, so we'll have plenty of future opportunities to > reconsider things. My main hope is to make sure those discussions are > grounded in real data published in the Web; having a reasonably-well > documented property out there and usable is an essential ingredient > for that. So I hope Simon's concern that 'focus' is already used > doesn't prove too much of a showstopper, since I don't yet since > another usable naming suggestion. > > cheers, > > Dan > >> the remarks are intereesting for the "rdf:comment" section though. >> >> my 2c >> Leo >> >> It was Bernard Vatant who said at the right time 09.08.2010 15:55 the >> following words: >> >> Hi Dan >> >> Although I loved foaf:focus at first sight because of the convergence >> metaphor (see http://blog.hubjects.com/2010/03/foaf-focus.html) I would tend >> to follow Simon's argument. >> Maybe I miss something, but are not we speaking about referent here, in the >> semiotic sense. >> >> So why not foaf:referent ? >> >> Bernard >> >> 2010/8/9 Simon Spero <ses@unc.edu> >>> >>> 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". >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> 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.) >>> >>> On Aug 9, 2010 8:19 AM, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org> wrote: >>> Hi SKOS folks >>> >>> http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/ >>> http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/20100809.html#term_focus >>> >>> Just to let you know, there's a revision of the FOAF specification >>> today. It includes a new term, foaf:focus that links a skos:Concept to >>> the thing that the concept stands for. >>> >>> This notion has been discussed many times here over the years, >>> sometimes as "skos:it", but never made it into W3C's REC-track SKOS >>> spec. FOAF has long contained a cluster of topic-oriented properties >>> (topic/page, primaryTopic), and in FOAF we have a long-standing >>> concern with describing the areas of interest and expertise for people >>> and other agents (eg. organizations, groups, projects). The addition >>> of foaf:topic is intended as a modest and pragmatic bridge between >>> SKOS-based descriptions of topics, and other more entity-centric RDF >>> descriptions. When a SKOS Concept stands for a person or agent, FOAF >>> and its extensions are directly applicable; however we expect >>> foaf:focus to also be used with places, events and other identifiable >>> entities that are covered both by SKOS vocabularies as well as by >>> factual datasets like wikipedia/dbpedia and Freebase. >>> >>> Other relevant changes: the overview of FOAF at the top of the spec >>> now more clearly separates two informal sub-sets of FOAF terms: "Core >>> FOAF" terms and "Social Web" terms. The distinction is made with >>> regard to whether a term is useful in describing someone or something >>> who lived before the Web / internet. Only the more universal >>> characteristics of groups, people etc are considered 'core FOAF'; >>> things like 'homepage', 'openid', 'weblog' are in the "Social Web" >>> layer. Previously, we mistakenly gave the impression that FOAF was >>> only for describing modern-day online accounts; hopefully the new >>> formulation more accurately conveys an interest in capturing >>> historical information too. There have also been some other textual >>> changes that attempt to indicate more clearly what we're attempting >>> with FOAF - essentially the combination of social and informational >>> networks. >>> >>> Re the "Core" subset, brief excerpt: "Core - These classes and >>> properties form the core of FOAF. They describe characteristics of >>> people and social groups that are independent of time and technology; >>> as such they can be used to describe basic information about people in >>> present day, historical, cultural heritage and digital library >>> contexts. In addition to various characteristics of people, FOAF >>> defines classes for Project, Organization and Group as other kinds of >>> agent." >>> >>> Also, various older terms (used in early demonstrations and >>> prototypes, plus some spelling variations) are now marked 'archaic', >>> both in human and machine-readable documentation. >>> >>> Feedback on the current design and description are welcome, either >>> here or on the foaf-dev list. My hope is that with foaf:focus we can >>> begin today gathering real-world implentation experience and data that >>> could inform any future revisions to SKOS itself. If W3C were to >>> eventually charter and complete an effort to update SKOS with matching >>> functionality to foaf:focus, we would of course update FOAF >>> accordingly to indicate the new mechanism. In the meantime, foaf:focus >>> is available for use, experimentation and collaboration. I hope it >>> proves useful when linking topically structured and factually based >>> RDF information. >>> >>> cheers, >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> ps. one thing the spec currently lacks is an example of the new >>> property. I'm waiting on this point, as several people are working on >>> related datasets, and I hope soon we'll have real-world examples to >>> illustrate foaf:focus's usage. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Bernard Vatant >> Senior Consultant >> Vocabulary & Data Engineering >> Tel: +33 (0) 971 488 459 >> Mail: bernard.vatant@mondeca.com >> ---------------------------------------------------- >> Mondeca >> 3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France >> Web: http://www.mondeca.com >> Blog: http://mondeca.wordpress.com >> ---------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> -- >> Leo Sauermann, Dr. >> CEO and Founder >> >> mail: leo.sauermann@gnowsis.com >> mobile: +43 6991 gnowsis >> http://www.gnowsis.com >> >> helping people remember, >> >> so join our newsletter >> http://www.gnowsis.com/about/content/newsletter >> ____________________________________________________ >>
Received on Tuesday, 10 August 2010 12:32:45 UTC