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

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

From: Daniel Rubin <rubin@smi.stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 04:35:22 -0800
Message-Id: <>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "Miles, AJ ((Alistair))" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: "Jon Phipps" <jphipps@madcreek.com>,"Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

I second that. I think it's important to have this to meet the needs 
of people with these requirements (such as Alan).

At 11:04 PM 11/20/2007, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

>This seems reasonable. It doesn't matter much to me whether it is in
>SKOS proper or SKOS-XL, as long as SKOS-XL is widely adopted by
>people with similar requirements.
>This is modulo ensuring that the scheme can be represented reasonably
>in OWL1.1, including entailments.
>On Nov 20, 2007, at 9:07 AM, Miles, AJ ((Alistair)) wrote:
>>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
>>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?
>>[3] <http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/public/skos/2007/10/f2f/label- 
>>Alistair Miles
>>Research Associate
>>Science and Technology Facilities Council
>>Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
>>Harwell Science and Innovation Campus
>>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
>>>Subject: Re: SKOS/ synonym provenance (ISSUE-27 AnnotationOnLabel)
>>>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.
>>>On Nov 20, 2007, at 7:40 AM, Miles, AJ ((Alistair)) wrote:
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 12:57:47 UTC

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