RE: AW: SemWeb terminology page

Looking at these two groups again, it seems like the terms in group 2 vocabularies tend to be URL-encoded and appended to some sort of URI prefix (hopefully following a '/' or '#' character). The terms in group 1 tend towards un-encoded literals that need to be contextualized somehow (hence my SKOS suggestion).

Is this just my imagination?

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Mark van Assem
> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 8:47 AM
> To: public-lld
> Subject: Re: AW: SemWeb terminology page
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 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"
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> On 11/11/2010 12:32, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> > Point taken, Ed! I was trying to answer the initial email, but it is
> > certainly wiser to think about the objective first...
> >
> > Antoine
> >
> >
> >> I guess it gets back to what we are trying to do with this Semantic
> >> Web Terminology Page [1]. If it really is a list of useful Semantic
> >> Web and Linked Data terminology then assuming RDF doesn't seem like
> a
> >> problem.
> >>
> >> If the page is going to also include library terminology, and try to
> >> relate library terminology to semantic web terminology I think we
> are
> >> doing something different...and more difficult.
> >>
> >> //Ed
> >>
> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Semantic_Web_terminology
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 4:10 AM, Antoine Isaac<aisaac@few.vu.nl>
> wrote:
> >>> Well, it does avoid some hassles, but in fact it does not answer
> >>> anymore the
> >>> initial need, which was to find a label for:
> >>> 1. things like FOAF, FRAD and other "metadata schemas"
> >>> 2. things like AAT, LCSH, VIAF and other "value sets"/"vocabulary
> >>> encoding
> >>> schemes" (to take DC abstrac model terminology)
> >>>
> >>> For the first RDF vocabulary would be ok, except that they're not
> >>> always in
> >>> RDF (yet). Or would that idea for that category be "stuff that
> would be
> >>> represented as RDF vocabularies"? It's alright with me, since we're
> a
> >>> linked
> >>> data-oriented group so can afford quite a biased view on the world
> ;-)
> >>>
> >>> For the second dataset indeed applies to them, but it is perhaps a
> >>> bit too
> >>> broad. RDF conversion of bibliographic catalogs would also be
> >>> datasets. What
> >>> we wanted to address was this set of reference values to be used
> for
> >>> other
> >>> datasets. Perhaps on linked data this distinction does not operate
> >>> anymore,
> >>> from a technical perspective. But it becomes difficult to explain
> to
> >>> non-LD
> >>> people then if we lose all anchoring to their world.
> >>> Perhaps we should keep using a less elegant but quite explicit
> >>> "authorities
> >>> and KOS resources" as in the topic list [1]--I'd prefer "KOS" as a
> >>> general
> >>> umbrella, but I guess it can be confusing to others...
> >>>
> >>> Antoine
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Topics#CM._Conceptual_Models_
> and_KOS
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> +1 - seems to avoid some hassles mentioned earlier.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers, Joachim
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >>>> Von: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org]
> Im
> >>>> Auftrag von Ed Summers
> >>>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. November 2010 22:51
> >>>> An: public-lld
> >>>> Betreff: Re: SemWeb terminology page
> >>>>
> >>>> Personally, I like the term "RDF Vocabulary" to talk about RDF
> schemas
> >>>> and OWL ontologies like FOAF, SKOS, DCTERMS, etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> I tend to use "Dataset" from VoID [1] to refer to a bounded
> collection
> >>>> of web resources e.g. id.loc.gov/authorities, viaf.org, etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think one of the lessons from the DCAM is that we should limit
> the
> >>>> amount of vocabulary we ourselves have to create to talk about
> things.
> >>>> But that doesn't make for very lengthy dissertations though I
> guess
> >>>> :-)
> >>>>
> >>>> //Ed
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] http://vocab.deri.ie/void/guide
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>

Received on Friday, 3 December 2010 03:00:00 UTC