- From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:37:56 +0100
- 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>
- Message-ID: <9d93ef961003240937w6ba42a63o347c68f609c49412@mail.gmail.com>
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: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/SKOS/Issues/ConceptEvolution 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 -- 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, 24 March 2010 16:38:31 UTC