Re: SemWeb terminology page

Quoting Manue <manue@figoblog.org>:


>
> Why not "metadata vocabularies" ?
>
> Emmanuelle
>
> PS: I'm not arguing on "value vocabularies", which seems clear enough.
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 5:23 PM, ZENG, MARCIA <mzeng@kent.edu> wrote:
>> +1 Mark.
>> “Value vocabularies” is understandable, although it may limit to those only
>> to be used as ‘values’.  (There are other functions a KOS can perform).
>> ‘Properties’ has different meanings in different communities.  It could be
>> confusing when it is not used with context. It may also mislead when mapping
>> different types of resources.  ‘Metadata element set’  is a term widely
>> accepted and has clear meaning.  What people want to use the elements for
>> depend on the implementations.
>> Marcia
>>
>> On 11/2/10 12:08 PM, "Mark van Assem" <mark@cs.vu.nl> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> So we should choose two different terms and in our report explain those
>> terms in relation to terms that may be more familiar to specific parts
>> of our audience.
>>
>> "Value vocabularies" seems to be working for most.
>>
>> A reason not to choose "properties" as you suggest is that those are RDF
>> centric terms, so none of our audience will get it immediately, while
>> choosing e.g. metadata element set has the advantage that some in the
>> audience will immediately get it.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On 02/11/2010 16:49, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>> The term "vocabularies" gets used for a lot of different things in
>>> semantic web discussions. However, as this thread shows, there isn't an
>>> obvious set of clear terms to use in its place.
>>>
>>> Depending on who you are talking to, the things that DCMI calls "value
>>> vocabularies" are "controlled lists of terms" or "authority lists" or
>>> "pick lists." Although 'value vocabulary' is a clear distinction to
>>> adherents of DCAM, I have not heard that phrase used by any other
>>> communities. When I talk to librarians, I often use the phrase
>>> "controlled list" in my explanation. It would be good to get the 'value
>>> vocabulary' concept disseminated broadly.
>>>
>>> The analogy to properties is "data elements" in the traditional IT
>>> world. In fact, the MARC documentation refers to the fields and
>>> subfields as data elements. For that reason, "metadata element" and
>>> "metadata element set" seem to resonate with folks who are already
>>> somewhat familiar with a data processing model. However, I worry that
>>> people will assume that a property is the same as a data element.
>>>
>>> The terms "property," "value" and "statement" have no meaning for folks
>>> in the library world. These are new concepts, and should be introduced
>>> as representing a new way of creating and using metadata. I think it is
>>> legitimate to say that MARC does not have properties (in the semweb
>>> sense), and there are no statements in a MARC record as it is coded
>>> today. The advantage here is that librarians can move to new concepts
>>> and a new vocabulary about those concepts, which I think will help keep
>>> them from dragging the old ideas along with them into the semantic web..
>>>
>>> Therefore (after all of that), I would vote for using 'value
>>> vocabularies' and 'properties' ('set of properties' for something like
>>> foaf or dcterms?), but explain them in terms of controlled lists and
>>> data elements, emphasizing the differences.
>>>
>>> Yep, easier said than done.
>>>
>>> kc
>>>
>>> Quoting Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Generally the whole situation is a mess, and can only be understood
>>>>> sociologically / historically. Asking whether eg. 'schemas' and
>>>>> 'ontologies' are the same or different doesn't get us very far.. Asking
>>>>> about which communities used which terms maybe gets us a bit
>>>>> further...
>>>>
>>>> Ok, If the question is about communities we're communicating with, then
>>>>
>>>> "element set" would probably work here
>>>>
>>>> (come to think of it, I used "metadata element set" to refer to DC etc.
>>>> in my thesis, and later link that to the term "schemas" to denote how
>>>> DC looks like in RDF, which then become "metadata element schemas"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I also like "value vocabulary" because it sort of indicates that they
>>>> go into the object part ("value") of a triple.
>>>>
>>>>> I quite like 'vocabulary' as it covers schema, ontology, metadata set,
>>>>> and also SKOS/thesaurus stuff too.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but we need separate terms for the things "vocabulary" may
>>>> encompass. In other words it's either too broad or means different
>>>> things to different people.
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mark van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
>>>> http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>   Mark van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
>>             http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
>>
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2010 13:30:05 UTC