W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > March 2010

Re: SKOS, owl:sameAs and DBpedia

From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:37:56 +0100
Message-ID: <9d93ef961003240937w6ba42a63o347c68f609c49412@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>, Linking Open Data <public-lod@w3.org>, SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Hi all

>> see also http://wiki.foaf-project.org/w/term_focus
> >>
> >
> > However, I'd like to understand why a sameAs would be bad here, I have
> > the intuition it might be, but am really not sure. It looks to me like
> > there's no resource out there that couldn't be a SKOS concept as well
> > (you may want to use anything for categorisation purpose --- the loose
> > "categorisation" relationship being encoded in the predicate, not the
> > type). If it can't be, then I am beginning to feel slightly
> > uncomfortable about SKOS :-)
> Because conceptualisations of things as SKOS concept are distinct from
> the things themselves. If this weren't the case, we couldn't have
> diverse treatment of common people/places/artifacts in multiple SKOS
> thesauri, since sameAs merging would mangle the data. SKOS has lots of
> local administrative info attached to each concept which doesn't make
> sense when considered to be properties of the thing the concept is a
> conceptualization of.

I'm glad to see those things expressed so neatly, thanks Dan for this!

Another example to hit this nail, in which I'm currently deeply engaged :
evolution of concepts and concept schemes over time. A concept can for
example be renamed or moved in a given scheme. The descriptions of the
"same" concept in two different versions of the concept scheme can therefore
be distinct, IOW you'll have two different skos:Concept having different
URIs, with different descriptions ruling out the use of owl:sameAs. But to
capture the fact that they have the same referent, they would share the same
value of foaf:focus.

BTW for those interested in this issue, after discussion with Antoine Isaac
yesterday, we (he) set a new page about it on SW wiki:

The first reference paper by Joseph Tennis introduces the notion of
"abstract concept" vs "concrete concept" (the one instanciated in a concept
scheme). In foaf parlance, the former would be the "focus" of the latter.


Bernard Vatant
Senior Consultant
Vocabulary & Data Engineering
Tel:       +33 (0) 971 488 459
Mail:     bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
Web:    http://www.mondeca.com
Blog:    http://mondeca.wordpress.com
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 16:38:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:46:01 UTC