- From: Stephane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:30:42 -0400
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org, semantic-web@w3.org
- Message-ID: <1452bf811003211330j4ce441dsad210fde46e02e01@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks Antoine for these thumbs up! In the same spirit, you might see that we hinted at using Dublin Core's > dcterms:subject for using concepts as subject of documents (i.e., the link > between "node" and "term" at [1]). But as sioc:topic is a subproperty of > dcterms:subject, everything is perfect. > In fact, we recently fixed that to use dc(terms):subject instead of sioc:topic, I just haven't taken the time to incorporate this change in the graph, but I will update it at the same time as the SKOS changes. And don't hesitate to post other questions here, if you have any. > There you go: S14 [6] says "A resource has no more than one value of skos:prefLabel per language tag." (though it's not formally expressed in the RDF schema [7]). How is that supposed to work if one wanted to map (owl:sameAs) a Drupal term (skos:Concept) to another Concept from elsewhere like dbpedia or another authoritative thesaurus which has a different skos:prefLabel? Is that an argument in favor of maybe dropping skos:prefLabel and use something more generic like rdfs:label? How do people feel about using dc:title for the label of a skos:Concept? Or is there a better property for mapping the two which would not have the same effects as owl:sameAs? (cc'ing semantic-web@w3.org for these more generic questions). Steph. [6] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#L1567 [7] http://www.w3.org/2009/08/skos-reference/skos.rdf On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: > Dear Stephane, > > The proposed change (i.e., using skos:ConceptScheme and skos:inScheme > instead of skos:Collection and skos:member) is certainly the way to go! > SKOS collections are rather for groupings of concepts *within* a > vocabulary. > > About the rest: you might hear sometime that "terms" are not in a perfect > match with SKOS' "concepts". But from what I understand from your use case > [3], your mapping seems perfectly valid. In fact the case is very close to > some of the use cases SKOS has had [4]. > > Also, there has been some use of Dublin Core properties to described SKOS > concept schemes [5], maybe you want to re-use them for your "vocabulary" > node at [1]. You can also use some SKOS documentation properties there as > well, such as skos:definition or skos:scopeNote. But feel free to follow > your own intuition, as we never came close to any formal recommendation on > that matter. > > In the same spirit, you might see that we hinted at using Dublin Core's > dcterms:subject for using concepts as subject of documents (i.e., the link > between "node" and "term" at [1]). But as sioc:topic is a subproperty of > dcterms:subject, everything is perfect. > > By the way, I guess everyone on this SKOS mailing list is glad to see SKOS > uptake in the Drupal community. Keep up the excellent work! And don't > hesitate to post other questions here, if you have any. > > Cheers, > Antoine > > > [1] > http://openspring.net/blog/2010/01/12/rdfa-in-drupal-7-last-call-for-feedback-before-alpha-release > [2] http://groups.drupal.org/node/44094#comment-154828 > [3] http://drupal.org/handbook/modules/taxonomy > [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-ucr > [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/#secscheme > > > > Hi, >> >> As you might already know, Drupal 7 will expose its data as RDFa and >> we've tried to represent Drupal's internal structure in RDF. The current >> status of the schema is depicted in the graph at [1]. We received a >> comment at [2] recommending to use skos:ConceptScheme instead of >> skos:Collection for vocabularies. This seems a fair point, and I would >> like to get some feedback from the SKOS community before I make this >> change, as there might other things we've missed. The main concepts we >> have in Drupal are taxonomy vocabularies and terms. Each term belong to >> one vocabulary. So far we've mapped 'term' to skos:Concept, and I think >> that's fine. We've mapped 'vocabulary' to skos:Collection but the >> suggested change is to use skos:ConceptScheme instead, which would also >> imply to use skos:inScheme between each term and the vocabulary it >> belongs to. Below are some examples using a vocabulary for 'countries' >> and a term for 'Italy'. >> >> With the current RDF representation: >> >> site:vocabularyCountries a skos:Collection . >> skos:member site:termItaly. >> site:termItaly a skos:Concept . >> >> >> With the proposed change: >> >> site:vocabularyCountries a skos:ConceptScheme . >> site:termItaly a skos:Concept ; >> skos:inScheme site:vocabularyCountries . >> >> >> And with all the other metadata for vocabulary and term: >> >> site:vocabularyCountries a skos:ConceptScheme ; >> rdfs:label "Countries" ; >> rdfs:comment "A vocabulary containing countries on a Drupal site" . >> site:termItaly a skos:Concept ; >> skos:prefLabel "Italy" ; >> skos:definition "A term for Italy in a Drupal site" ; >> skos:inScheme site:vocabularyCountries . >> >> >> I would appreciate any feedback on whether this is the best way of using >> SKOS in the context of Drupal taxonomies [3]. >> >> all the best, >> Steph. >> >> [1] >> >> http://openspring.net/blog/2010/01/12/rdfa-in-drupal-7-last-call-for-feedback-before-alpha-release >> [2] http://groups.drupal.org/node/44094#comment-154828 >> [3] http://drupal.org/handbook/modules/taxonomy >> > >
Received on Sunday, 21 March 2010 20:31:31 UTC