- From: Diane I. Hillmann <dih1@cornell.edu>
- Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 17:57:13 -0500
- To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- CC: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>, public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
Folks: Apologies for wading in here, since I haven't had the time today to read all the messages thoroughly. It seems to me that SKOS doesn't constrain us from creating different labels for concept identifiers--certainly that's what we've been doing with the RDA vocabularies with the DNB labels in German. I don't really see anything in the SKOS spec that suggests that labels be used as identifiers, but I can't guarantee that I'm not missing anything. Certainly we've had a great deal of trouble with dual purposing labels as identifiers in the MARC world, and there's not much value for us that I can see in replicating that problematic model going forward. Diane On 2/8/11 2:19 PM, Karen Coyle wrote: > Jeff, I'm not having trouble understanding this. I think I'm not > getting across to you, though. I do not want for there to be a karen > scheme and a jeff scheme. What I am advocating is that there could be > a somebody scheme, and there could be different choices for > prefLabels. In fact, one person's altLabel may be another person's > prefLabel. SKOS cannot do this, but I think it could be needed. What > it comes down to is that there could be an identified *something* > > http://something.st/aThing > > and I may wish to label that as: > aabbcc > > and someone else may wish to label it as > zzyynn > > But we may want to use the same identifier for the purposes of > interoperability and for efficiency. > > To my mind, SKOS models the traditional thesaurus structure and its > use of a human-readable *identifier* too closely. Like many of the > other aspects that keep the "S" in "SKOS" this one I think will limit > its usability in the end. > > kc > > Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)"<jyoung@oclc.org>: > >> Karen, >> >> Let's use you and I as an example. Assume that this FRBR Event already >> exists somewhere, but doesn't have any prefLabel assigned: >> >> ex:World_War_I a frbr:Event ; >> frbr:hasTerm "World War I" ; >> frbr:hasTerm "Great War" ; >> frbr:hasTerm "WWI" . >> >> If you want to assign a prefLabel for your community, you could do so >> like this: >> >> karen:ww1 a skos:Concept ; >> skos:inScheme karen:myScheme ; >> skos:prefLabel "World War I" ; >> foaf:focus ex:World_War_I. >> >> I could do the same for my community: >> >> jeff:gw a skos:Concept ; >> skos:inScheme jeff:myScheme ; >> skos:prefLabel "Great War" ; >> foaf:focus ex:World_War_I . >> >> Here is a SPARQL query that would allow your community to determine its >> prefLabel for the FRBR Event: >> >> SELECT ?prefLabel >> WHERE { >> ?concept >> skos:inScheme karen:myScheme ; >> skos:prefLabel ?prefLabel ; >> foaf:focus ex:World_War_I . >> } >> >> Does this help? >> >> Jeff >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net] >>> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 11:59 AM >>> To: Young,Jeff (OR) >>> Cc: open-bibliography@lists.okfn.org; public-lld >>> Subject: RE: New BNB sample data available >>> >>> Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)"<jyoung@oclc.org>: >>> >>>> I think we agree that the MESH and LCSH Concepts are >>> owl:differentFrom >>>> despite their skos:exactMatch relationship. I assume this is the >>> source >>>> of Karen's confusion on the identity of "the thing" (concept) they >>>> presumably have in common. >>>> >>> Jeff, I have no problem with MeSH and LCSH -- those are different >>> vocabularies, and often the terms are not equivalents. I'm concerned >>> about future vocabularies when we've gotten vocabularies out beyond >>> institutional silos and different folks want to be compatible but do >>> not want to use the same display for their users. This would mean >>> using the same URI but a different human display. It seems to me that >>> RDF would potentially allow that, but SKOS seems to close down that >>> possibility. >>> >>> kc >>> >>> >>>> >>>> I admit this proposal is disconcerting because it uses both >>> skos:Concept >>>> and frbr:Concept, but it would resolve the problem of different >>>> prefLabels in different schemes for the same thing. For example: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> mesh:concept1 a skos:Concept ; >>>> >>>> skos:inScheme mesh:scheme ; >>>> >>>> skos:exatcMatch lcsh:concept1 ; >>>> >>>> skos:prefLabel "The MESH term" ; >>>> >>>> foaf:focus frbr:concept1 . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> lcsh:concept1 a skos:Concept ; >>>> >>>> skos:inScheme lcsh:scheme ; >>>> >>>> skos:exactMatch mesh:concept1 ; >>>> >>>> skos:prefLabel "The LCSH term" ; >>>> >>>> foaf:focus frbr:concept1 . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> # The primary entity >>>> >>>> frbr:concept1 a frbr:Concept ; >>>> >>>> frbr:hasTerm "The LCSH term" ; >>>> >>>> frbr:hasTerm "The MESH term" ; >>>> >>>> frbr:hasTerm "other term" . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Note that FRBR:Concept doesn't have a property to express prefLabel >>> (and >>>> IMO shouldn't). This same pattern would work for other types of >>> primary >>>> entities like frbr:Person, frbr:CorporateBody, etc. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Jeff >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: sesuncedu@gmail.com [mailto:sesuncedu@gmail.com] On Behalf Of >>>> Simon Spero >>>> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 4:33 PM >>>> To: Karen Coyle >>>> Cc: Young,Jeff (OR); open-bibliography@lists.okfn.org; public-lld >>>> Subject: Re: New BNB sample data available >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Karen Coyle<kcoyle@kcoyle.net> >>> wrote: >>>> Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)"<jyoung@oclc.org >>>> <mailto:jyoung@oclc.org> >: >>>> >>>> I agree that you have stated these as equivalents, but do you >>>> agree that these two concepts use different identifiers? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> kc >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The constraint is stronger than that; If two Things have different >>>> preferred labels in a given language in the same conceptScheme, >> then >>> it >>>> is necessarily true that they have different identifiers, *and* that >>> the >>>> identifiers are owl:differentFrom. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Notice that LCSH has different schemes for juvenile and >> non-juvenile >>>> headings (some of which have the same preferred label/Descriptor). >>>> Terms can be in different registers >>>> <http://www.ttt.org/clsframe/datcats02.html#register> without being >>> in >>>> different languages. There's even an ISO registry of register - >>>> http://www.isocat.org/rest/dc/1988 . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Also, if distinct uris which refer to Concepts which exactMatch, the >>>> Concepts have the same extension, but the uris need not refer to the >>>> same Concept object (in fact, in the case discussed above, the URIs >>>> cannot be referring to the same object). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> BTW, SKOS explicitly declines to make exactMatch reflexive, though >>> it >>>> does make it Symmetric and Transitive, which means that if A exactly >>>> matches anything, it exactly matches itself. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Simon >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Karen Coyle >>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net >>> ph: 1-510-540-7596 >>> m: 1-510-435-8234 >>> skype: kcoylenet >>> >> >> >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2011 22:57:49 UTC