- From: Helmut Nagy <h.nagy@semantic-web.at>
- Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:36:00 +0200
- To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Hi, we are following the discussion with great interest and are having a discussion here to so i will add some thoughts: Found this in the foaf discussion: "focus is more explicit: this is what this category or concept is "about"" One concern we have is that foaf:focus may be misused in another way e.g to link a person to topics they have a "focus on" skos:"Helmut Nagy" foaf:focus http://rdf.freebase.com/ns/en.foaf So we also think that focus may be the wrong term. Cheers Helmut | Helmut Nagy | Semantic Web Company GmbH | Lerchenfelder Guertel 43/5 | A - 1160 Wien, Austria COMPANY INFORMATION | http://www.semantic-web.at/ | http://www.i-semantics.at/ | http://blog.semantic-web.at/ PERSONAL INFORMATION | h.nagy@semantic-web.at On 10.08.2010, at 19:51, Dan Brickley wrote: > 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 præsens, 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 Wednesday, 11 August 2010 11:36:55 UTC