- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 17:33:35 +0100
- To: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- CC: W3C public GLD WG WG <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
That makes sense, yes (defining a range). OK, I'll work on that. It feels like a good use of Occam's Razor, always the best tool in the box. Thanks Phil. On 03/08/2012 17:07, Dave Reynolds wrote: > Hi Phil, > > On 03/08/12 16:10, Phil Archer wrote: >> Pls see below >> >> On 28/06/2012 16:10, Dave Reynolds wrote: >>> Hi Phil, >>> >>> Follow up from GLD call ... glancing at the ADMS document I noticed some >>> oddities that are reflected in the RDF [1]. >>> >>> Specifically, there are a number entities that look like aliases for >>> skos:Concept. For example: >>> >>> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&skos;Concept"> >>> <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">Asset Type</rdfs:label> >>> <rdfs:comment xml:lang="en" rdf:parseType="Literal">The >>> skos:Concept class fully represents the ADMS class of Asset Type (see >>> section on the <xh:a xh:href="#Code">Code</xh:a> datatype for >>> details).</rdfs:comment> >>> <vann:usageNote xml:lang="en">Used in ADMS to provide a >>> classification of a Semantic Asset according to a controlled vocabulary, >>> e.g. code list, metadata schema.</vann:usageNote> >>> <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="&skosDoc;" /> >>> <dcterms:identifier>skos:Concept</dcterms:identifier> >>> </rdf:Description> >>> >>> With similar declarations for: "Code", "Interoperability Level", >>> "Representation Technique" and "Status". >>> >>> I suspect this is a slip and that the intention was to introduce actual >>> classes which would be sub-class (or equivalent-class) to skos:Concept. >>> >>> [If it's not a slip then this is a modelling style which I would prefer >>> us to avoid. It means that we are assigning alternative labels to >>> skos:Concept itself - which is problematic both technically and >>> socially.] >> >> Thanks Dave, >> >> It's taken me too long to get to this but, well, I have now. >> >> It's a slip and it's not a slip - more of a compromise I'm very happy to >> change because I don't like it for all the reasons you give. >> >> I raised the issue back in November [1] (actually, I swear I've raised >> it more than once. I remember getting a reply from someone at Top >> Quadrant I hadn't heard of but I can't find it). The basic problem is >> that we're defining a vocabulary that uses other people's terms but that >> doesn't mean we don't have something to say about them. >> >> What I want to say here is: the way to encode the ADMS Asset Type is to >> use a skos:Concept. In his reply to my question, Jeremy said I could use >> sub properties/classes. Well, yes, I know that, but I really don't want >> to - I want to say *use skos:Concept*. JJC then said that if people >> didn't like whatever new labels were added, they didn't have to use >> them, which is true of course. The e-mail I can't find from another TQ >> person made the same point, i.e. you can say what you like and other >> people decide whether to take any notice. With this in mind I was >> slightly more ready to add new labels to existing classes although in my >> sign off from that thread [2] I expressed exactly the worry as you end >> with in almost the same terms ("...DCAT includes lots of Dublin Core >> elements so I'm anxious to do this in a way that is semantically and >> socially right.") > > So I agree with JJC that it is legal to add your own labels to other > people's terms. However, it is a potential mild barrier to uptake that > might be better avoided if it can. > > In particular, in this case your aliases are rather narrow. So anyone > using skos:Concept seeing a label for it such as "Interoperability > Level" is likely to be confused. It only makes sense in the context of > ADMS and so is really a property of ADMS not of skos. > > To say "use skos:Concept" here then you do that through rdfs:range > statements as you have done (or owl:Restrictions). I don't see you need > anything else. > >> But, if it is not right to add new labels to existing terms - and I >> agree entirely, I don't think it is - how can we proceed? > > Just use the range declarations and stop there. You already have things > like: > > adms:interoperabilityLevel > rdfs:label "interoperability level"@en; > rdfs:comment "Links a resource to its adms:InteroperabilityLevel. > Since this is encoded using skos:Concept, that is the > defined range for this property."@en; > rdfs:range skos:Concept . > > That seems sufficient to me. Though I would rephrase it without the > mention of the non-existent curie > > > adms:interoperabilityLevel > rdfs:label "interoperability level"@en; > rdfs:comment "Links a resource to its Interoperability Level, which > should be encoded using skos:Concept."@en; > rdfs:range skos:Concept . > >> I haven't >> updated the schema in w3.org space yet but I have prepared a version >> that I hope is better in this regard - although it still doesn't feel >> right [3]. The key bit is: >> >> <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#Concept> >> rdfs:label "Concept"@en ; >> rdfs:comment """The skos:Concept class fully represents the following >> ADMS classes: >> - Asset Type >> - Code >> - Interoperability Level >> - Representation Technique >> - Status >> In each case, the use of a Concept from a suitable Concept Scheme will >> provide a suitable value from a controlled vocabulary. In the particular >> case of the ADMS data type of Code, the intention is that the >> skos:Concept class be used as follows: >> - for the content property, use skos:notation >> - the ADMS list property will be taken care of by means of the >> skos:inScheme property; >> - the list agency property is likely to be applied to the scheme as a >> whole for which dcterms:creator is appropriate; >> - the list version property can be fulfilled using schema:version.""" ; >> rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/> ; >> dcterms:identifier skos:Concept . > > So I won't formally object to that but it seems unnecessary and slightly > confusing. > > That makes more sense to me as part of the documentation of ADMS. For > example it could be a comment on the Ontology resource to explain how > the mapping from the ADMS abstract model has been done in the RDF. Or it > could be in some separate documentation which is linked to the ADMS > Ontology resource via rdfs:seeAlso or similar. > > It's not really a comment on skos:Concept. > > Dave > > > -- Phil Archer W3C eGovernment http://www.w3.org/egov/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Friday, 3 August 2012 16:34:01 UTC