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

> 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.

:) What would you call them instead?

Cheers,

Alistair.




> 
> 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 15:46:44 UTC