RE: SemWeb terminology page

The definition of group 1 appears to be indistinguishable from
skosxl:Label. What would be the differences, if any?

http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#xl-Label

(Note that I'm not arguing for SKOS at this point, I'm just trying to
understand the meaning here.)

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Baker [mailto:thomasbaker49@googlemail.com] On Behalf Of
> Thomas Baker
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 11:24 PM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: Jodi Schneider; Tillett, Barbara; Mark van Assem; public-lld
> Subject: Re: SemWeb terminology page
> 
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 09:25:05PM -0500, Jeff Young wrote:
> > Are hindsight arguments allowed? ;-)
> >
> > I suspect that DCMI Types would be better modeled as OWL Classes.
> This
> > would put them in group 2.
> 
> Hang on...
> 
> Group 1 is supposed to have things like LCSH, AAT, WordNet...
> I'd call these "value vocabularies" because its members are
> typically used as values.
> 
> Group 2 is supposed to have things like FOAF, BIBO, DC, even
> SKOS and FRBR (seen as vocabularies).  I'd call these "element
> vocabularies" because they are composed largely of properties,
> which are typically used as predicates.
> 
> Admittedly it's a fudge, but so are the alternatives.
> In making this distinction, the intention is not to propose
> a watertight typology, based on sound, consistent modeling
> distinctions.  Rather, the idea is to group vocabularies
> pragmatically, according to their typical use, in a way that
> will make sense to the intended audience but without actually
> offending the ontological sensibilities of experts.
> 
> I'm not getting how changing the the DCMI Type Vocabulary
> from a set of RDF classes to a set of OWL classes would make
> it move from Group 1 to Group 2.
> 
> Tom
> 
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Thomas Baker [mailto:thomasbaker49@googlemail.com] On Behalf
> Of
> > > Thomas Baker
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 9:19 PM
> > > To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> > > Cc: Jodi Schneider; Tillett, Barbara; Mark van Assem; public-lld
> > > Subject: Re: SemWeb terminology page
> > >
> > > Hi Jeff,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 09:06:28PM -0500, Jeff Young wrote:
> > > > IMO, "value vocabulary"/"SKOS Vocabulary"/etc. ("group 1") is an
> > > alias
> > > > for skos:ConceptScheme.
> > >
> > > Does that definition perhaps go too far?  The DCMI Type
> > > Vocabulary [1] is a set of RDF classes, and I would call that a
> > > "value vocabulary".
> > >
> > > Tom
> > >
> > > [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#H7
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
> > >
> >
> 
> --
> Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
>

Received on Friday, 3 December 2010 17:02:52 UTC