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: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:25:13 +0100
Message-ID: <4756ED09.5050907@few.vu.nl>
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

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