RE: SemWeb terminology page

I agree with Jodi that this can and should be clearer.

IMO, "value vocabulary"/"SKOS Vocabulary"/etc. ("group 1") is an alias
for skos:ConceptScheme. The "values" in such a vocabulary map to
rdf:PlainLiteral or skosxl:Label which can then be sensibly related to
"reality" via skos/xl:prefLabel. The definitions for all these terms are
clearly and precisely documented. Using SKOS requires some
rationalization, but that's life with any ontology.

As for explaining the difference between ontology and conceptual model,
I stumbled across this article the other day from 7 years ago that may
be useful:

http://www.virtualtravelog.net/entries/000057.html

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Jodi Schneider
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 5:14 PM
> To: Tillett, Barbara
> Cc: 'Thomas Baker'; Mark van Assem; public-lld
> Subject: Re: SemWeb terminology page
> 
> The use of 'vocabulary' with different modifiers seems doomed to fail.
> That's because, for me, I find it difficult to mentally distinguish
> 'Value vocabulary' and 'element vocabulary'. The idea of a 'library
> vocabulary' and 'semantic web vocabulary' is just barely
understandable
> enough for me to handle.
> 
> I'd be very, very happy if someone could propose an alternative which
> didn't use 'vocabulary' twice. I fear abbreviation as well as the
> assumption that, oh, yeah, we know what vocabularies are (with
> different resultant assumptions depending on one's background).
> 
> I think it's important to note that FRBR is used to refer both to
> ontologies and to a conceptual model. It's worth explaining the
> difference between an ontology (completely formally specified) and a
> conceptual model, if we can.
> 
> -Jodi
> 
> On 2 Dec 2010, at 21:43, Tillett, Barbara wrote:
> 
> > I agreee with Tom:
> >    Value vocabulary
> >    Element vocabulary
> >    Data set
> >    No particular handle for "conceptual models", which we
> >        may refer to variously as "ontologies" or "conceptual
> >        models".
> > It fits with what has been common parlance when talking about these
> in library communities.- Barbara Tillett
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Thomas Baker
> > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 4:30 PM
> > To: Mark van Assem
> > Cc: public-lld
> > Subject: Re: SemWeb terminology page
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 02:47:14PM +0100, Mark van Assem wrote:
> >> We from the DO cluster had another discussion about a terminology
> issue.
> >>
> >>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> >> To reiterate, the issue is what term to apply to two groups of
> things
> >>
> >> 1) LCSH, AAT, WordNet and the like. These describe concepts that
are
> >> used in actual medata.
> >>
> >> 2) FOAF, FRBR and the like. These describe what concrete metadata
> must
> >> look like; defines classes and properties, the instances of which
> are
> >> actual metadata, and in which concepts defined in 1 are used.
> >>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> >>
> >> To resolve this we thought it's useful to define criteria:
> >>
> >> a) the terminology should fit with our (main) public. This is
> probably
> >> library people, so how well it fits with the SemWeb folks is
> secondary.
> >>
> >> b) because especially the word "vocabulary" is confusing, we should
> >> either avoid "vocabulary" altogether or prepend it so as to
> >> distinguish the two e.g. "value vocabulary" and "metadata
> vocabulary"
> >>
> >> c) given that people tend to abbreviate terms when they use them,
> the
> >> prepending approach may create the confusion we're trying to avoid.
> >>
> >> d) if possible it is advantageous to not refer to how the groups
are
> >> implemented, i.e. do not refer to RDF, XML or anything else.
> >> Definition through mentioning how it is implemented can be
> distracting.
> >>
> >>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> >> I've collected all proposals and added a few more:
> >>
> >> Suggested terms for group 1:
> >> - vocabulary
> >> - value vocabulary
> >> - SKOS vocabulary
> >> - KOS
> >> - domain vocabulary
> >> - controlled list
> >> - code list
> >> - "thesauri, glossaries, classification schemes and other
> vocabularies"
> >
> > +1 for "value vocabulary" as long as we include the disclaimer
> > that the vocabulary is being characterized as a "value"
> > vocabulary because that is how its terms are typically used.
> > I agree with Mark and Mikael on this.
> >
> >> Suggested terms for group 2:
> >> - RDF vocabulary
> >> - properties / property set
> >> - Set of property and class terms
> >> - metadata vocabulary
> >> - data elements
> >> - element vocabulary
> >> - ontology
> >> - conceptual model
> >> - metadata element set
> >> - metadata model
> >> - metadata schema
> >> - modelling schema
> >
> > I prefer Mikael's imperfect "element vocabulary", which seems
> approximately right if you squint hard enough.  Again, one would need
> to qualify this by saying that the vocabulary is being characterized
> this way because they largely consist of properties, which are
> typically used as predicates.
> >
> >>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> >>
> >> Mikael's suggestion of "value vocabulary" and "element vocabulary"
> is
> >> really good, but this does mean we'll have to be very careful in
> >> drafting our documents to meet criterium c, but this will not help
> >> people outside our documents. We have a chance here to think up
> >> something that will have a wider use than our documents.
> >>
> >> If we ignore criterium d, then choosing "RDF vocabulary" for 2
seems
> >> obvious, but violates criterium c. Therefore something like
> >> "conceptual model" or "ontology" for group 2 is better.
> >>
> >> My personal favorites are:
> >>
> >> 1) value vocabulary - expresses that we're dealing with vocabulary
> >> concepts that are _used_ in actual metadata. Violates b/c though.
> >>
> >> 2) metadata model - expresses that these things determine how
actual
> >> metadata can look like; more neutral term than "ontology" which
> >> library people may interpret as something different than a
> metamodel.
> >
> > I find "metadata model" really confusing!  For example, is an XML
> schema a "metadata model" (because it expresses how actual metadata
can
> look)?
> >
> > Given a choice, I would rather bite the bullet and use "ontology",
> taking the risk that some readers may still associate "ontology"
> indelibly with a branch of traditional metaphysics. Or "conceptual
> model".  But I do not see these as being in the same category as
> "metadata element set".
> >
> > On the other hand, I'm not really sure we need to define a separate
> handle for things like FRBR.  To take the example of SKOS, SKOS is
> definitely an RDF vocabulary -- in our terminology, an "element
> vocabulary" (with classes that might be considered a "value
> vocabulary", but basically an element vocabulary) -- but it is also a
> data model for describing concepts.  For our purposes, if we squint
> hard enough, I think we could characterize SKOS as an "element
> vocabulary" and simply mention that it is related to a data model --
> without classifying it as a "metadata model".
> > The same applies to FRBR: yes, it is a conceptual model, but when
> used in linked data it is an "element vocabulary".
> >
> > This is the best I can come up with given the choices, but none of
> the options seems really satisfactory.  I only wish I were more firmly
> convinced that this exercise of "haute vulgarisation" is really
helpful
> and will not itself cause some confusion...
> 
> >
> > +1 for Ed's suggestion re: "dataset".
> >
> > In sum:
> >    Element vocabulary
> >    Value vocabulary
> >    Data set
> >    No particular handle for "conceptual models", which we
> >        may refer to variously as "ontologies" or "conceptual
> >        models".
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >> Opinions? If you argue pro/con particular terms it helps if you
> point
> >> out the principles/communities on which that preference is based.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Mark.
> >
> > --
> > Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
> >
> >
> 
>

Received on Friday, 3 December 2010 02:07:56 UTC