- From: Daniel Rubin <rubin@smi.stanford.edu>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 04:35:22 -0800
- 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). Daniel 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. > >-Alan > >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 >>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, 21 November 2007 12:57:47 UTC