- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:25:54 +0100
- To: Leonard Will <L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk>
- CC: "public-swd-wg@w3.org" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, "public-esw-thes@w3.org" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Hi, Trying to re-focus the discussion on its original topic (the other one is also very interesting, maybe more in fact, but there is still boring editorial stuff to do ;-) > Treating node labels as concepts is not just "not a best practice" - it > is logically wrong and misleading. > > If SKOS is just to be used for the generation of hierarchical displays > then this fudge can be used, but I thought that it was more than that > and was concerned with the accurate representation of semantic > relationships I thought my last paragraph and its "harmful loss of semantic accuracy" would capture that. But I can make the text stronger, if you think this would be appropriate. Thanks a lot for your help, again, Antoine > On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 at 15:08:01, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote >> Hello everyone, >> >> I'm coming back to this issue, as I took the following action on me: >> >>> [PENDING] ACTION: Antoine to write something in Primer wrt. ISSUE >>> 160 [recorded in >>> [37]http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-swd-minutes.html#action14] >> >> I have come with two paragraphs at the end of this mail, to add at the >> end of the section on Collections in the SKOS Primer [1]. I hope that >> they capture the main lessons that can be learnt from this very >> interesting discussion. Feedback is more than welcome! >> >> Note that I would prefer not to mention explicitly Johan and Leonard's >> solutions, as I feel they would add much detailed for the Primer, and >> maybe also too much BS-8723 oriented. But it's clear they'd be welcome >> to appear as best practice notes somewhere... >> >> Best, >> >> Antoine >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/#seccollections >> >> ======== beginning of added paragraphs >> >> One may wonder whether using collections is desirable, as they add >> complexity to the representations applications have to manipulate. In >> fact, for some cases, e.g. when KOS are mainly intended as navigation >> hierarchies, it seems more intuitive to represent "node labels" or >> "guide terms" as instance of skos:Concept, and to use normal semantic >> relationships for linking them to other concepts. Take the following >> variant of the "milk" example: >> >> ex3:milkBySourceAnimal rdf:type skos:Concept; >> skos:prefLabel "milk by source animal"@en; >> skos:broader ex3:milk; >> skos:narrower ex3:cowMilk; >> skos:narrower ex3:goatMilk; >> skos:narrower ex3:buffaloMilk. >> >> The choice between the two representation options remains open, >> depending on the application at hand. Readers should however be aware >> that not using collections, even if more intuitive, may result in a >> harmful loss of semantic accuracy. For many description applications, >> for instance, "node labels" are entities of really specific nature, >> and must not be used as object indices alongside "normal" concepts. >> Representing them as mere concepts is therefore clearly not a best >> practice. >> >> ======== end of added paragraphs >> > Treating node labels as concepts is not just "not a best practice" - it > is logically wrong and misleading. > > If SKOS is just to be used for the generation of hierarchical displays > then this fudge can be used, but I thought that it was more than that > and was concerned with the accurate representation of semantic > relationships - witness the extended discussion of the distinction > between "broader" and "broader transitive", for example. > > Doing it properly may be slightly more complicated, but that is because > the semantic relationships are more complicated. I don't think you can > ignore them. If you just want to generate displays you don't need SKOS > at all, you can just use simple tags like BT/NT/RT, which give a much > simpler exchange format that has served us well in many applications up > to now. > > I'm also concerned that you say that a more complete representation is > "maybe also too much BS-8723 oriented". Is that a bad thing? In fact it > would be better if it were more ISO 25964 oriented, following the model > attached to my message of 4th December, which is a later development of > the BS-8723 model and which makes the important distinction between > "arrays" and "concept groups". > > I am really keen that if SKOS is to become a de facto standard for the > exchange of thesaurus data it should be capable of modelling all the > elements of a modern thesaurus that complies with standards. If you > don't like our model, please tell us what is wrong with it; if you do, > why not use it? > > You did say "feedback is more than welcome"! :-) > > Leonard
Received on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 09:26:32 UTC