- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:51:55 +0200
- To: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- Cc: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, Simon Spero <ses@unc.edu>, SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@talis.com>
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> wrote: > Welcome Antoine to the brainstorming > > Since the box is open, it's open :) :) > I like standsFor, but my latin culture would prefer a latin term, so why not > "represents" or even simply "presents" [1] > Well, I know, I will have the same remarks as for "referent" or "refersTo" Thanks for saving me some typing ;) > But I'm waiting for real good arguments against it. A concept is really a > way for a thing to be made pręsens, in the various meanings of the word such > as "really there" and "efficient". RDF and OWL are themselves a representational system, as is [at another level] the Web itself. To use such a generic term, risks constant confusion. Another option discussed btw was 'about'; however both RDF/XML and RDFa syntax use that already > See http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=praesens&la=la#lexicon > ... or for not-so-young frenchies remembering their humanities years, the > good old Gaffiot I just discovered on-line. > http://www.lexilogos.com/latin/gaffiot.php?p=1225 I'll have a read! Dan > Bernard > > [1] Since no presentation is really new, any presentation is a > representation (and vice-versa) See > http://blog.hubjects.com/2009/11/representation-as-translation.html > > > > 2010/8/10 Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> >> >> 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. >>> >>> >> >> > > > > -- > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------- >
Received on Tuesday, 10 August 2010 17:52:30 UTC