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

Re: SKOS Use Cases request for comments

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 10:33:11 +0200
Message-ID: <465E8847.6040204@few.vu.nl>
To: "Weibel,Stu" <weibel@oclc.org>
CC: DC-GENERAL@JISCMAIL.AC.UK, public-swd-wg@w3.org

Hi Stu,

Thanks for the answer, I think I understand the problem.

Indeed the R-ConceptualMappingLink is not clear. It just stands for a 
label for the requirement ("R-" stands for requirement), not a new 
precise relation. Actually the kind of relation that is targetted by 
this requirement is not known precisely right now: as the text in [1] 
says, we know that these are links between concepts from different 
concept schemes, that they are of semantic essence (comparable to the 
broader/narrower/related found in thesauri) and that a first 
approximation of them can be found at [2]. And we have some examples, 
found in the use cases in the motivation line (e.g. Manuscript case, [3]).

Would have it been clearer if in the requirement section all or R-XXX 
were kept hidden, and only the natural headers displayed? (e.g. 
"Correspondence/Mapping links between concepts from different concept 
schemes" instead of "R-ConceptualMappingLinks"). In the same line, I 
suppose that things like "SKOS-I-extension-6" are not clear either, even 
though the @@ are expected to prevent the reader to attach too much 
attention to them...

The problem is that we use these requirement "labels" in as identifiers 
in our working group discussions, and it would have been nice if people 
from outside had used them for feedback ("hey, your requirement 
R-ConceptualMappingLinks is crap") instead of using natural sentences 
that can always be twisted and misunderstood...

This is also motivated but a need for conciseness implied by the 
document containing so much of hyperlinks, from the use cases themselves 
to the requirements, and vice versa. We found that interesting, because 
it allowed to give a direct ('browsable') link between the cases and the 
requirement they motivate, which is not as easy to render if you keep 
the standard linear structure of a document.

Anyway, I agree that there is room for improvement, we'll try to make 
this readable (also including 'reading instructions') in a next version.



[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-ucr/#R-ConceptualMappingLinks
[2] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/mapping/spec/2004-11-11.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-ucr/#UC-Manuscripts
> We're all inundated with things to read about new protocols, standards,
> workflows, and more.  Some of these things fit quite nicely into a
> shared context and require very little background information to make
> them meaningful.
> SKOS defines a set of relations among terms, some of which are obvious
> from their names, others of which are not.  Few are intuitively obvious
> or are commonplace notions from the world we already have. What is a
> ConceptualMappingLink? How is it related to a ConceptualRelation? What
> does the R- prefix stand for? None are explained in the document, so
> unless I've already read and am familiar with some undisclosed number of
> existing specifications, I'm pretty much in the dark. [I do not discount
> the possibility that those who don't already KNOW what these relations
> are, won't have useful feedback, but I infer that you expect otherwise] 
> Please understand I'm not saying what you have written is not useful...
> it is just not stand-alone, and if the document is not stand alone, it
> presents a two-stage difficulty:
> 1. Find out what the collection of documents is that is necessary to
> achieve coherence
> 2. Read and understand them all, and integrate the understanding
> The alternative is to not bother: heaven knows there are other things
> competing for the same attention.
> What then to do?
> At the very least, the document should contain explicit links to the
> requisite parts of the problem... the links are almost certainly there
> already, but as a reader of the document, I don't know in advance what I
> need to read and what I don't, and that uncertainty alone is a
> disincentive to moving ahead.
> Better still, add a section that summarizes the candidate functionality
> relations, explain briefly how they fit into the overall framework, and
> then proceed with the use case analysis.  I accept the possibility that
> that could make the document unmanageably long.  There is some
> compromise, I think, that would improve your likelihood of getting the
> feedback you need.
> Or maybe I'm a just a lazy sloth.  Or both, of course ;-)
> stu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 11:57 AM
> To: Weibel,Stu
> Cc: DC-GENERAL@JISCMAIL.AC.UK; public-swd-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: SKOS Use Cases request for comments
> Dear Stu,
> Frist thank you for reading the document. Your comment is very useful.
> Just one question however: were you just stuck in one specific section 
> of the document (for instance the one on 'requirements') or did you 
> generally stumble on SKOS features that you would have liked to be 
> explained beforehand? And can you point at one or two specific examples 
> where you were not satisfied? This might help us a lot to deal with your
> comments.
> Thanks,
> Antoine
>> I've downloaded this document and perused it.  It will not, on its
> own, be understandable to those not already familiar with the SKOS
> candidate functionality.
>> I understand the desire to not replicate descriptions of these
> candidate functionalities in this document, but without a direct and
> obvious summary, the reader is left with the choice of diving into the
> entire corpus of SKOS documents or just not bothering at all. If this
> group really wants community feedback, I think there is further work to
> be done to make these important ideas more accessible to the relevant
> communities.
>> stu
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: General DCMI discussion list [mailto:DC-GENERAL@JISCMAIL.AC.UK]
> On Behalf Of Mikael Nilsson
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 5:06 AM
>> Subject: FYI: SKOS Use Cases request for comments
>> Forwarded from the W3C:
>>> Request for Comments: SKOS Use Cases and Requirements: Working Draft
>>> 2007-05-16: The Semantic Web Deployment Working Group has
>>> published the First Public Working Draft of SKOS Use Cases and
>>> Requirements [1]. Knowledge organization systems, such as taxonomies,
>>> thesauri or subject heading lists, play a fundamental role in
> information
>>> structuring and access. These use cases and fundamental or secondary
>>> requirements will be used to guide the design of SKOS (Simple
>>> Knowledge Organisation System), a model for representing such
>>> vocabularies. Learn more about the Semantic Web Activity. We would
> greatly
>>> appreciate your comments and feedback on this Working Draft, which
> should
>>> be submitted to the SWD mailing list [2].
>>> [1]  http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-ucr/
>>> [2]  mailto://public-swd-wg@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2007 08:33:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:43 UTC