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

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

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:58:45 -0000
Message-ID: <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D03B3FAB6@exchange11.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Hi Antoine,

> 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...

I could live with that. Although, technically speaking, literals are resources too. In the RDF semantics, everything is a resource. This might seem like a technical point, but I do like to stick as strictly as possible to the terminology used in the RDF semantics.

Cheers,

Al.

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Antoine
> 
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBet
> weenLabels/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:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>     
> >>>>>>         
> >>>>>>             
> >>>>>   
> >>>>>       
> >>>>>           
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >>     
> >
> >   
> 
> 

--
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  
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 17:59:38 UTC

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