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

Hi Jeff,

If data consumers can't interpret some schema:Concept as a skos:Concept, while it came from skos:Concepts originally, this will be a very mitigated success in terms of interoperability, certainly!
But I understand your concern. Let's just try to avoid this sub-optimal situation...

Antoine


> I assume these advanced features are beyond what Schema.org will swallow.
>
> I love how much of SKOS is being incorporated into this proposal. I'm mainly wary of this assertion (explicit or implied):
>
> schema:Concept owl:equivalentClass skos:Concept .
>
> If the advanced SKOS features can be snuck into Schema.org, great. If they can't, then we need an (implied) assertion like this to preserve the integrity of SKOS:
>
> skos:Concept rdfs:subClassOf schema:Concept .
>
> Jeff
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 1:01 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
>>
>> 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 18:48:40 UTC