Re: SemWeb terminology page

On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 12:01:57PM -0500, Jeff Young wrote:
> 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

I'm not sure what you are suggesting.  As I see it, the point
is that in a "value vocabulary" the "members are typically
used as values".  Are you saying these vocabularies could be
seen as sets of lexical entities?

A skosxl:Label simply reifies the label attached to a concept
as a resource with its own URI.  While those label URIs
could conceivably be cited in metadata, the general idea of
SKOS is to define sets of concepts, not (primarily) sets of
lexical resources.  In metadata, a concept in the LCSH concept
scheme would typically be cited in metadata using the URI of
the concept.

This is also in line what an earlier posting proposed as
a definition for Group 1: "1) LCSH, AAT, WordNet and the
like. These describe concepts that are used in actual medata."

Tom



> 
> (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>
> > 
> 

-- 
Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>

Received on Friday, 3 December 2010 17:26:00 UTC