- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 19:01:23 +0200
- To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
- CC: <public-schemabibex@w3.org>, "Vizine-Goetz,Diane" <vizine@oclc.org>, "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
Does this practically mean that you're suggesting that the schema:Concept extension should: -include foaf:focus as a possible attribute -try to enforce more constraints on labeling properties? Antoine > 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 17:01:56 UTC