RE: Next Meeting - Schema Bib Extend W3C Group - 17th October

I'm not completely sure that Gordon's view of FRBR Concept aligns with mine. I prefer the FRBR Final Report's definition of Concept: http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr1.htm#3.2

	3.2.7 Concept

	The seventh entity defined in the model is concept: an abstract notion or idea.

I'm less comfortable with the more liberal definition Gordon gives (from FRBRer?) "a grab-bag, best defined as 'a subject which is not a Work, Expression, ...'". It's getting harder and harder to believe there are only 10-12 basic types of things in the universe by treating "Concept" as equivalent to "Miscellaneous".

A couple of other asides:
	- I would argue that FRBR Concepts aren't dependent on authority control. People can recognize concepts without necessarily being able to agree (or even attach) authoritative labels to them.
	- We should avoid the assumption that FRBR Group 2/3 entities only become such when they are known to be a "subject" of a FRBR Work or bound to other FRBR entity by some other form of literary warrant (creator/publisher/etc). Gordon's point about FRSAD and OWL is useful and deserves further consideration. Which of the following should we believe?:
		- frsad:Thema owl:equivalentClass owl:Thing . (Correcting owl:sameAs to owl:equivalentClass)
		- frsad:Thema rdfs:subClassOf owl:Thing . (only things that are the "subject" of a FRBR Work are frsad:Themas)

That's how I think about FRBR Concept. I'm not claiming that this hair-splitting is "correct". I'm just saying that my brain doesn't fall out as often when I think this way.

Moving on to SKOS:

One aside first: Since FRSAD go mentioned earlier, it may also be worth pointing out the symmetries between skos-xl:Label/skos-xl:prefLabel and frsad:Nomen/frsad:hasAppellation

Now back to SKOS Concepts. Assuming that my interpretation of FRBR Concept makes sense, I would argue this:
	- skos:Concept rdfs:subClassOf x-frbr:Concept .

There are a few reasons for this:
	- http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#S14
	- http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#L4858
	- http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_focus

I would argue that these principles/patterns are essential for proper authority control. OTOH, I suspect that these principles are beyond the limits of what Schema.org extension would accept. Thus my argument that schema:Concept is more equivalent to FRBR Concept than it is to skos:Concept.

I'm not saying schema:Concept (based on the proposal) couldn't be used to define an authority control scheme, only that it will be idiomatic and have to be manipulated to work in aggregated environments.

Clear as mud yet? :-)

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 3:58 AM
> To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Next Meeting - Schema Bib Extend W3C Group - 17th October
> 
> Hi Jeff (and thanks to Gordon for the explanation!)
> 
> Interesting: we meant schema:Concept to be as close as skos:Concept.
> Why would it feel closer to frbr:Concept?
> 
> Note that the sub-classing of schema:Concept as sub-class of
> schema:Intangible is really open for discussion. If we realize that
> this sub-classing stands in the path of some FRSAD or SKOS uses, then
> let's get rid of it.
> 
> Antoine
> 
> 
> > Jean,
> >
> > I like where this is heading. In the experimental WorldCat.org Linked
> Data so far (online RDFa and bulk N-Triples) I used skos:Concept for
> these situations. In my dev environment, though, I started the switch
> to schema:Intangible but wasn't entirely happy with it. This proposal
> is much more satisfying.
> >
> > One issue comes to mind for discussion, though. This proposed
> schema:Concept feels more equivalent to FRBR Concept than it does to
> skos:Concept. The difference is subtle but real, IMO, and has to do
> with foaf:focus (with a range of "Thing" and inverse of
> madsrdf:isIdentifiedByAuthority) being a meaningful property for the
> latter (skos:Concept) but not the former (FRBR Concept). VIAF (which
> doesn't currently attempt to identify FRBR Concepts) is probably the
> best illustration of the issues involved.
> >
> > I realize that schema:Concept is destined to be a compromise, but it
> would be nice (albeit perhaps not necessary) if this group had a clear
> understanding and articulation of those compromises to minimize
> confusion in industrial-strength use cases.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > *From:*delahousse.jean@gmail.com [mailto:delahousse.jean@gmail.com]
> *On Behalf Of *jean delahousse KC
> > *Sent:* Monday, October 15, 2012 10:13 AM
> > *To:* public-schemabibex@w3.org
> > *Subject:* Re: Next Meeting - Schema Bib Extend W3C Group - 17th
> October
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > First I want to thank you for accepting my application to participate
> to your work group.
> >
> > I had been working this summer on an extension of Schema.org for
> controlled vocabularies based on Skos ontology. After BnF published
> Rameau in the LOD but also as web pages, one for each concept, I
> thought it will be useful to have an extension of Schema.org to make
> concepts defined in controlled vocabularies more visible by search
> engines.
> >
> > Concepts are good candidates for TopicPages, and work as hub to
> access well annotated contents or others Topic Pages. They are a
> valuable asset for content / knowledge access from a search engine.
> >
> > Also it happens to find "glossary", "terminology" or "lexicon" in a
> web site. This extension of Schema.org will enable to describe those
> types of publication.
> >
> > I took the initiative of this work but immediately ask for support
> and review work to Antoine Isaac and Romain Weinz. They have been very
> encouraging and already proposed corrections included in this version.
> >
> > You'll find attached the proposal for the Skos Schema.org extension,
> we made it as simple and light as possible.
> >
> > I propose, if the group agrees, to have a first discussion on this
> proposal inside our group before to publish it for a larger audience..
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Talk to you on Thursday.
> >
> > Jean Delahousse
> >
> > 2012/10/10 Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org
> <mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org>>
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > It is about time we followed up on the excellent first meeting we
> had.
> >
> > I have scheduled conference call time for 11:00am EDT next Wednesday
> 17th October for us to start to talk through some of the issues and
> suggestions we discussed last time.
> >
> > You will find call in details and a provisional agenda on the group
> wiki here: http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Meet_20121017
> >
> > If you have suggestions for the agenda, either edit the wiki or drop
> me a line.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Richard.
> >
> > --
> > Richard Wallis
> > Technology Evangelist
> > OCLC
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> >
> > *KnowledgeConsult, Directeur Associé*
> >
> > blog >contenus >données >sémantique <http://jean-delahousse.net> -
> twitter.com/jdelahousse <http://twitter.com/jdelahousse>
> >
> > jean.delahousse@knowledgeconsult.com
> <mailto:jean.delahousse@knowledgeconsult.com> +33 (0)6-01-22-48-55
> skype: jean.delahousse
> >
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2012 16:39:21 UTC