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

Hi Jeff,

I have no time to react to the FRBR stuff, unfortunately. But I'm quite puzzled by this:


> Thus my argument that schema:Concept is more equivalent to FRBR Concept than it is to skos:Concept.


How come that a class that is designed to represent skos:Concepts would be closer to another class than it is to skos:Concept??? Especially when skos:Concept itself is so minimally defined?

I'm ready to accept that the current design for schema:Concept has missed something. But I'd need to understand which precise part has missed its aim ...

Cheers,

Antoine


> 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 16:52:41 UTC