W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > December 2007

Re: SKOS-XL (was RE: SKOS/ synonym provenance (ISSUE-27 AnnotationOnLabel))

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:28:26 +0100
Message-ID: <4755721A.3020704@few.vu.nl>
To: "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
CC: public-swd-wg@w3.org, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>

Hi Alistair,

OK for the example. Actually I thought you should have seeLabelRelation 
in SKOS-XL because labelRelated is there. But I missed that the 
labelRelated from your SKOS-XL proposal is actually dedicated to 
relations between labels as reources.
Mea maxima culpa, I was too quick.
My guilt being acknowledged, I would however blame you ;-) for having 
exactly the same property and class names in both skos: and skos-xl: 
namespaces. I find this really confusing, even if of course that's 
perfectly legal.

Cheers,

Antoine

> Hi Antoine,
>
> I didn't forget about the skos:seeLabelRelation property in my SKOS-XL sketch [2]. There is no need to mention it.
>
> Consider the following two graphs.
>
> First graph, using SKOS (Core) only ...
>
> ex:MyConcept a skos:Concept;
>   skos:prefLabel "FAO"@en;
>   skos:altLabel "Food and Agriculture Organisation"@en;
>   skos:seeLabelRelation ex:MyLabelRelation.
>
> ex:MyLabelRelation a skos:LabelRelation;
>   skos:labelRelated "FAO"@en;
>   skos:labelRelated "Food and Agriculture Organisation"@en.
>
> Second graph, using SKOS (Core) plus SKOS-XL ...
>
> ex:MyConcept a skos:Concept;
>   skos-xl:prefLabel ex:LabelX;
>   skos-xl:altLabel ex:LabelY;
>   skos:seeLabelRelation ex:MyLabelRelation.
>
> ex:MyLabelRelation a skos:LabelRelation;
>   skos-xl:labelRelated ex:LabelX;
>   skos-xl:labelRelated ex:LabelY.
>
> ex:LabelX a skos-xl:Label;
>   skos-xl:plainLiteralForm "FAO"@en.
>
> ex:LabelY a skos-xl:Label;
>   skos-xl:plainLiteralForm "Food and Agriculture Organisation"@en.  
>
> Note that the second graph entails the first.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alistair.
>
> --
> Alistair Miles
> Research Associate
> Science and Technology Facilities Council
> Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> Harwell Science and Innovation Campus
> Didcot
> Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
> United Kingdom
> Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
> Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
> Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440  
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl] 
>> Sent: 23 November 2007 22:31
>> To: Miles, AJ (Alistair)
>> Cc: Jon Phipps; Daniel Rubin; public-swd-wg@w3.org; Alan Ruttenberg
>> Subject: Re: SKOS-XL (was RE: SKOS/ synonym provenance 
>> (ISSUE-27 AnnotationOnLabel))
>>
>> Hi Alistair,
>>
>> Apart from the formal concerns I expressed in my previous 
>> mail, I just wanted to say that I had also some technical 
>> doubts. Mainly regarding the correspondence between the 
>> "label-as-resource" pattern and the "minimal label relation" 
>> one: your rules do not consider the attachment of the 
>> ex:fooRelation to the considered instances of skos:Concept.
>>
>> This raises again the issue I mentioned once about the 
>> minimal label relation [4] also lacking a story.
>> What is the story for contextualizing the "reified" 
>> relationship between labels? In [4] the relationship resource 
>> is linked - via a seeLabelRelation property - to the concept 
>> to which the labels themselves are attached.
>> I already mentioned the problem in a telecon. If I remember 
>> correctly, you said that you would attach the reified 
>> relationship to each of the concepts to which the original 
>> literals are attached. This can be doable, but I think it 
>> might raise some problems one day, and in any case miss sound 
>> justification. The fact that you forgot it in [2] could be a hint :-p
>>
>> Is it because the problem is not important, contrary to what 
>> I think, or is there really something?
>> [And of course this should not hide the fact that the 
>> "label-as-resource" or "simple extension" lacks a story. Here 
>> I agree with you...]
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Antoine
>>
>> [4]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBet
>> weenLabels/ProposalFour
>> [5] 
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Nov/0063.html
>>
>>     
>>> Hi Jon,
>>>
>>> You just reminded me, after the amsterdam f2f I wrote up a 
>>>       
>> specification for an *extension module* for SKOS, which I 
>> think captures your requirements:
>>     
>>> [2] <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/SKOS-XL>
>>>
>>> This takes the many-to-one position [3].
>>>
>>> My current feeling is *not* to include anything like this 
>>>       
>> in the main SKOS recommendation -- i.e. to limit the SKOS 
>> recommendation to *only* dealing with labels as RDF plain 
>> literals, which would keep it smaller and simpler. 
>>     
>>> I think it would then be quite reasonable to publish 
>>>       
>> something like SKOS-XL as a separate, stand-alone, extension 
>> to SKOS, for advanced users. 
>>     
>>> The SWDWG could itself publish such an extension, or anyone 
>>>       
>> from the SKOS community could do so. E.g. the FAO used their 
>> own extension to represent something like this.
>>     
>>> If the SWDWG left it to the community, to help promote 
>>>       
>> discovery and 
>>     
>>> convergence, the SWDWG could set up a wiki page where 
>>>       
>> members of the 
>>     
>>> community could "register" their SKOS extensions ... or we 
>>>       
>> could even 
>>     
>>> use your metadata registry to do that :)
>>>
>>> Finally, note that [1] doesn't have any "story" to it -- 
>>>       
>> it's just bare bones. Even as an extension module, [1] would 
>> need a story to go with it. To be even considered for 
>> inclusion in SKOS proper, it would need a very good story. I 
>> haven't got a story at all the moment, and I haven't heard 
>> anyone tell one yet either, so my position as stated in the 
>> summary of [3] still holds. Have you got a good story? 
>>     
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Al.
>>>
>>> [3] 
>>>
>>>       
>> <http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/public/skos/2007/10/f2f/label-relations.
>>     
>>> html>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alistair Miles
>>> Research Associate
>>> Science and Technology Facilities Council Rutherford Appleton 
>>> Laboratory Harwell Science and Innovation Campus Didcot Oxfordshire 
>>> OX11 0QX United Kingdom
>>> Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
>>> Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
>>> Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Jon Phipps [mailto:jonphipps@gmail.com] On Behalf Of 
>>>>         
>> Jon Phipps
>>     
>>>> Sent: 20 November 2007 13:17
>>>> To: Miles, AJ (Alistair)
>>>> Cc: Antoine Isaac; Daniel Rubin; public-swd-wg@w3.org; Alan 
>>>> Ruttenberg
>>>> Subject: Re: SKOS/ synonym provenance (ISSUE-27 AnnotationOnLabel)
>>>>
>>>> Al,
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to suggest in the light of further discussion that we 
>>>> reconsider Guus's Simple Extension Proposal[1]. Perhaps if we were 
>>>> able to declare skos:prefLabel as having an owl:equivalentProperty 
>>>> relationship to the rdfs:label property of a skos 
>>>>         
>> prefTerm, then this 
>>     
>>>> would allow us to effectively join a 'term' graph to a concept by 
>>>> asserting a typed relationship without impacting the current 
>>>> semantics of prefLabel. I think this might be far more 
>>>>         
>> effective than 
>>     
>>>> simply allowing a resource to be the object of a 
>>>>         
>> skos:label property.
>>     
>>>> I believe that Antoine had drawn this pattern on a notepad 
>>>>         
>> at the f2f 
>>     
>>>> but it didn't provoke much discussion. As I recall the main 
>>>> objections to Guus's proposal had to do with problems with the 
>>>> overloading of 'term' and the fact that it's subject to 
>>>>         
>> rather broad 
>>     
>>>> interpretation. Perhaps rather than simply rejecting the 
>>>>         
>> proposal, we 
>>     
>>>> could see if we can't adjust the naming to be more 
>>>>         
>> acceptable wrt to 
>>     
>>>> the apparent ambiguity of the term 'term' -- 
>>>>         
>> prefLexicalTerm perhaps.
>>     
>>>> Personally I'm far more comfortable allowing the joining 
>>>>         
>> of a term to 
>>     
>>>> a concept to both maintain and allow relationships between 
>>>>         
>> terms that 
>>     
>>>> can't be effectively expressed with the more generalizable 
>>>>         
>> conceptual 
>>     
>>>> relationships supported by skos than I am with the currently 
>>>> supported solution. It seems to me that there are far too many 
>>>> instances where publishing a concept using skos involves 
>>>>         
>> enough of a 
>>     
>>>> loss of useful data that it would present a barrier to 
>>>>         
>> acceptance of 
>>     
>>>> skos.
>>>>
>>>> --Jon
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007May/0057.html
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 20, 2007, at 7:40 AM, Miles, AJ ((Alistair)) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>   
>>>       
>>
>>     
>
>
>   
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 15:28:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:51 UTC