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
> 
> 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?

Yes. (I'm happy to sidestep issues of "value" vs. "label" by assuming
"lexical entity" is the common denominator.) SKOSXL allows these to be
treated as identifiable resources. Also note the openness of the domain
on skos:inScheme:

http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#L2805

This means that skosxl:Labels can be "controlled" using skos:inScheme
without requiring a skos:Concept intermediary. (I admit this may be
controversial, but the basic justification can be found here:)

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

> 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.

SKOSXL resolves this. SKOS was designed as a generalized solution for
"controlled structured vocabularies": 

http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#L879

It would be odd to dismiss SKOS because we determined it was designed to
manage "concepts" rather than "controlled vocabularies".

> In metadata, a concept in the LCSH concept
> scheme would typically be cited in metadata using the URI of
> the concept.

Agreed. And that concept has a skos:prefLabel that relates to the notion
of a "value". In principle, LCSH could identify skosxl:Labels instead of
(or in addition to) skos:Concepts. OTOH, I think we can prove that the
concepts associated with LCCNs are much more stable than the
labels/values. SKOS Concepts are also easier to relate across controlled
vocabularies than SKOSXL Labels are.

> 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."

How about some fuzzy wording like this:

These provide consistent names/labels for conceptualized things that can
be used in actual metadata.

Jeff

> 
> 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 20:59:47 UTC