Re: New BNB sample data available

  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