Re: Comments on "SKOS: requirements for standardization"

Hi Bernard,

>
>
> some comments on
> http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/public/skos/press/dc2006/camera-ready-paper.pdf 
>
>
>
> On the whole I agree with much of this, though I'm concerned (and 
> probably a little confused) about the use of the term 'index' as well 
> as some of the underlying assumptions of SKOS.

This use seems to me quite common in the information science world. What 
makes you really unconfortable with?

>
> My background in using SW technologies is pretty much restricted to 
> the two use cases identified in the email archive: conceptual 
> hypermedia [1] and search [2]. Thus my comments on this paper are 
> driven by the requirements and constraints of those use cases.
>
>
> '2.  Defining the scope of SKOS'
> I'm not sure how to match the workflow described in this section with 
> the workflows of the two use cases I mentioned above. Neither of the 
> use cases appear to have this workflow.

Concerning your UC [2] one could say that the controlled vocabulary is 
used to create a "temporary/virtual" index for the search: the original 
one augmented with the variants found using the controlled vocabulary.
I agree that this is however a variation from alistair's workflow, the 
main difference being obviously the fact that here your index are not 
manually created. Anyway, when Alistair mentioned it, it was refering to 
the "original" SKOS. I think nothing prevents us from inserting other 
generic scenarios in the loop!

>
>
> '3.  Anticipated Software Architecture'
> This section seems to omit what seems to me will be a requirement: the 
> transformation of an existing taxonomy/ontology into a SKOS taxonomy. 
> The transformation may be batch or dynamic, but I believe will be 
> necessary.
>
I think you're right about the need for a conversion. However, I'm not 
sure this has repercussions on SKOS requirements. Could you be more 
precise about which kind of req you envisioned ?

>
> '4.2 Maximizing the Profitability of Controlled Vocabularies '
> I think it would be useful to state in this section that the adoption 
> of SKOS may also increase the profitability of _existing_ vocabularies 
> by enabling them to be used by a greater number of applications (if 
> the vocabularies can be transformed into a SKOS representation).


You're right. Even if the cost don't lower the cost you can make more 
benefit by sharing it more easily, so there is profitability in what you 
refer to.
I think that this is actually something that has driven the SKOS idea 
since the beginning, but it might be so obvious that SKOS people could 
forget to tell about it ;-)

Best,

Antoine

>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2006Oct/0044.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2006Nov/0030.html
>
>

Received on Sunday, 19 November 2006 21:13:21 UTC