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

The difference boils down to casual vs. industrial use cases. As minimal as skos:Concept is, it still has these industrial-strength features:

	- http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#S14
	- http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#L4858
	- http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_focus

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 12:52 PM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org; Vizine-Goetz,Diane; Wallis,Richard
> Subject: 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 16:58:29 UTC