- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:25:13 +0100
- To: "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- CC: public-swd-wg@w3.org
Hi, Unfortunately I've got no strong opinion on this. Perhaps you could try and adapt the vocabulary for the "simple extension" proposal for ISSUE-26 [1]. that is, adding "Resource" whenever a property indeed targets resourcers instead of literals... Cheers, Antoine [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLabels/ProposalThree >> 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 Wednesday, 5 December 2007 18:25:26 UTC