Humans writing about SKOS Concepts and ConceptSchemes...

Hi!

In the midst of the discussion about how cool an URI can be, I would 
like to say that I do not find URIs cool at all!
Just dictate one by phone : lower case H T T P colon slash slash ....

Human should be allowed to communicate exact Concepts more easily.
I am basing my developments on the possibility that humans must have to 
write sentences using Concepts (and ConceptSchemes) easily.
A simple syntax/grammar shall allow to write adequate indexing sentences
(like, for instance, Precis : 
http://www.iva.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/SPECIFIC%20SYSTEMS/precis.htm and 
http://www.dsoergel.com/670/outline_KwasnikPRECIS.sigcr.04.htm )

So I defined that:
* a Scheme is identified by a word (case sensitive) composed of letters 
and digits.
* a Concept is identified (within a given Scheme) by a word starting and 
ending by letters and digits and composed of letters, digits and underscore.
* a Concept is identifier (out of the context of a Scheme) by the Scheme 
identifier, an underscore, a Concept "in context" identifier

Example:  language_fr_BE  means the french language as written in Belgium.

A mapping mechanism may be used to map this to Scheme and Concept URIs, 
but, from my point of view, let's free the humans from http://...!

There are other mechanisms proposed (for instance prefixing_ and 
_suffixing concept references) but my main point and question is:
"Does it make sense for the SKOS community to define a human agreable 
way of refering to Concepts, Schemes, Collections, etc. and a mapping 
mechanism toward URIs?"
This with the idea of implementing such a notation in applications where 
either:
1) the user types her/himself the codes (without assistance) for 
Concepts, Schemes, etc.
2) OR the user needs a compact display form for those
3) OR the application must be able to remap references to new URIs 
encoding conventions
4) OR the user is writing references in the middle of typed text (for 
instance Wikis) where full semantic statements (relation + concept + 
relation qualifiers/attributes) may be useful to express.

I also defined that:
* Prefixes are codes added before a concept' reference to precise the 
relation (for instance, the type of contribution for the reference to an 
author)
    Prefixes are a concept reference (within a collection of allowed 
prefixes in a given context) suffixed by an underscore.
* Suffixes are codes added after a concept' reference to add data to the 
relation (a weight, a number, a qualifier)
    Suffixes are a concept reference (within a collection of allowed 
suffixes in a given context) prefixed by an underscore.

In http://www.WindMusic.org, we use this intensively with success. Examples:
1) to denote that a recording is using a flute for a soloist, we can 
write (in the context of scheme Instruments):  solo_ flute
2) to denote two trumpets:  trumpet _2
3) to precise the role of an author: illustrator_ person_123456   
(123456 being a numerical code for a given person)

In the Belgium Poison Centre, we use this also. Examples:
1) to denote an article about a given substance:  thSubstances_1234567 
or CAS_10_820_30 (CAS is a Notation, not a Scheme) or about a plant: 
thPlants_7654321 (references out of the context of a given Scheme and 
using a numerical ID).
2) to denote a serial: journal_123456 or ISSN_1234_4321 (ISSN is a 
Notation, not a Scheme)

To go further and integrate this in a Wiki like JspWiki, I would like to 
develop a notation with equivalent capabilities than those in Semantic 
MediaWiki (relate a part of wiki page text as being an attribute of the 
relation between the Wiki page and a concept).

So anyone interested in end-users-ified SKOS within "free" text? by a 
mapping mechanism from/to URIs?

Have a nice day!

Christophe Dupriez
BE: http://www.destin.be
FR: http://www.squadratic.com
Project: http://www.askosi.org
Also using DSpace and JSPWiki

Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2010 16:06:48 UTC