RE: [OEP] "Classes as values": comments on draft

Hi Natasha, 

This is an interesting question, I am not sure where I come down on this.  

An argument for using SKOS within a note like this is that it is supported
by some fairly clear and well-presented documentation on how it is supposed
to be used, which can be linked to.  
  
> 
> 
> I'd like to address a couple of points here. First, how much 
> should the  
> notes on patterns promote specific vocabulary, such as SKOS? For  
> instance, your second solution is almost identical to 
> approach 3 in the  
> note and the only difference (it seems to me) is using a 
> specific SKOS  
> vocabulary (and making all concepts/subjects to be instances of  
> skos:Concept) rather than local concepts that I made up.
> 
> Should the pattern be using that vocabulary, thus encouraging 
> others to  
> use it? With SKOS in particular, I am pledging ignorance and have to  
> ask: how accepted is it and would it be premature to refer to 
> it in the  
> note? On the one hand, using concepts from other ontologies in the  
> patterns that we produce is a great show-case for the whole 
> SW idea. On  
> the other, we don't want to have patterns rely on more transient  
> ontologies (I am not trying to imply that SKOS is transient, just  
> wondering about the general policy). Any policy on that that 
> we should  
> have?  For example, should I change the approach 3 in the pattern to  
> use skos vocabulary as Alistair suggests below?
> 
> For the specific use case, as I've pointed out earlier, what I was  
> trying to use the pattern for is to talk about images/books, 
> etc that  
> are not about specific lions (and book is a better example 
> here), but  
> rather about a class of lions. That said, the solution like 
> your first  
> one, comes up often enough (even though it's a different 
> "ontological  
> pattern", to use Aldo's terminology), that it should be 
> included in the  
> note. Look for it in version 3.
> 
> Natasha
> 
> On Apr 29, 2004, at 7:36 AM, Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:
> 
> >
> > Sorry, resending this correcting some N3 syntax mistakes ...
> >
> > I believe the best way to express the fact that a particular image  
> > depicts a
> > thing which is a member of the class of Lions would be to 
> say (this is  
> > the
> > FOAF model):
> >
> > LionImage
> > 	a	AnimalImage;
> > 	foaf:depicts	[a	Lion].
> >
> > Lion
> > 	a	owl:Class;
> > 	subClassOf	Mammal.
> >
> > Mammal	a	owl:Class.
> > AnimalImage	a	owl:Class.
> >
> >
> > The alternative way of expressing similar information is to use the
> > dc:subject property along with the SKOS model [2] for describing  
> > concepts
> > that are intended to act as 'subjects' or 'topics' for information
> > resources.
> >
> > LionImage
> > 	a	AnimalImage;
> > 	dc:subject	LionConcept.
> >
> > LionConcept
> > 	a	skos:Concept;
> > 	skos:prefLabel	'Lions';
> > 	skos:broader	MammalConcept.
> >
> > MammalConcept
> > 	a	skos:Concept;
> > 	skos:prefLabel	'Mammals';
> > 	skos:narrower	LionConcept.
> >
> > The SKOS vocab already defines a class 'Concept' and a set of  
> > properties for
> > organising concepts into a hierarchy, without demanding that the  
> > hierarchy
> > implies a subclass relationship.  I refer the WG to the 
> document [2]  
> > which
> > outlines the SKOS-Core schema, although you should 
> currently ignore the
> > final section on 'using SKOS-Core with DC and FOAF' as this 
> will change
> > shortly to be in line with the model of usage that I have briefly  
> > described
> > here.
> >
> > Yours,
> >
> > Alistair.
> >
> > [1]
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Apr/att-0061/ 
> > ClassesAsVa
> > lues.html
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/1.0/guide/
> >
>

Received on Tuesday, 4 May 2004 13:10:06 UTC