- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:22:51 +0200
- To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Hi everyone, How to resist such discussion?? At least I won't try to add stuff, but instead have a shoot at some of the proposals around :p 1. I think we have to be careful with whatever carries the idea of "name" or "term". There might be collision with other ways of looking at (term-based) KOSs (e.g., http://nkos.slis.kent.edu/FRSAR/index.html). Which includes in fact SKOS(XL): a "termFor" would rather apply for something skosxl:Label, I think. "conceptFor" is less dangerous! 2. Among Alistair's proposals there are some which sound like (soft) similarity (simile, analogue) at least in my ear of non-native. Maybe this is not ideal if the entities linked do not belong to the same level (KOS vs. "real-world"). "incarnation" stuff sounds much better, Actually it reminds me of Bernard's "praesens", which I like a lot (esp. for the interesting collision with the cool and modern "foaf" namespace ;-) ). Otherwise "proxy" is used by ORE (http://www.openarchives.org/ore/1.0/datamodel#Proxies) and in the Europeana context we almost routinely use SKOSification to refer to the transformation of legacy KOS representation to brand new SKOS resoources ;-) so these ones are taken.! Cheers, Antoine > Hi Alistair, I do not resist to hitchike in this galaxy: > > Dan's original definition: > "foaf:focus links a skos:Concept to the thing that the concept stands for" > > This link being defined within the namespace of the representation > system of the destination, it means that a similar relation term may be > useful for other applications than FOAF and that this relation term may > represent the SKOS contribution in the RDF network. > > So what "essence" SKOS brings to the representation of a person, of some > thing? It does not "document", it does not "explain" (like OWL), it does > not "link". For me, the SKOS concept provides the terminology to make > the person or thing discoverable / identifiable by humans. It "names" (a > very ambiguous term). > It also "orders" things in a BT/NT pyramid. Something not so agreable > for the FOAFed humans! > > Some proposals: > foaf:namesFor > foaf:termsFor > foaf:controlledTermsFor > foaf:thesaurusEntryFor > foaf:skosConceptFor > or skos:conceptFor ? > > The proof has been done again that people exchange much more knowledge > when they have the excuse of discussing terminology than when (serious) > topics are put directly on the table: at the end we may have finalized > the way we want to relate SKOS concepts to their alter ego in other > representation systems... > > Question: skos:conceptFor (reciprocal foaf:skosConcept) or skos:termsFor > (reciprocal foaf:skosTerms) would not be easierFor:everybody? > > Good evening! > > Christophe > > > Le 11/08/2010 18:19, Alistair Miles a écrit : >> Hi all, >> >> FWIW, I'm glad this is in FOAF, I think it's a useful pattern, and I >> could live with "foaf:focus" given a few good examples in the >> documentation. >> >> If a decision is made to change the name, the only thing I'd suggest >> is to steer clear of anything that might have any formal connotations >> regarding language or logic, and to keep it informal, quirky and if >> possible entirely novel. >> >> The bottom line is this is a useful pattern (e.g., where two blogs >> have a category for the Dalai Lama) and it's convenient from a >> programming point of view to have three nodes in the graph (one for >> each category and one for his holiness himself) and some triples >> linking them together ... but if you start thinking too hard about >> what your doing from a logical or philosophical point of view, well I >> start feeling like I've crossed the streams and pointed them at my own >> head - especially when I try to describe it to myself in terms of the >> RDF semantics and the interpretation function I. (Question: Does >> IEXT(I(foaf:focus)) describe the function I itself? Answer: 42. :-) >> >> That said, I can't resist having a go at thinking up a better name, so >> here's a few thoughts, some clearly won't work in FOAF because of >> other connotations, but might suggest other ideas... >> >> avatar >> cast >> quintessence >> tti (the thing itself) >> skosification / skosifies (my favourite, simply because it's novel) >> incarnation >> proxy >> surrogate >> delegate >> deputy >> portrait >> simile >> analogue >> echo >> reflection / reflects >> frankie / benjy :-) >> >> Cheers >> >> Alistair >> >> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Helmut Nagy<h.nagy@semantic-web.at> >> wrote: >>> 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 Thursday, 12 August 2010 08:23:25 UTC