- From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 23:48:31 +0000
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- CC: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
There is a saying that only God knows the true name of something. :-) My experience with prefLabels is that they need to be assigned to a context in a mesh-up environment. Datasets that don't do this a priori need to be mapped to a context before being merged. In an RDF environment, this is clunky but possible by adding a skos:inScheme property when labeling concepts. If you want to assign prefLabels to non-conceptual things, I've found foaf:focus useful. That's what we do in VIAF. These extra levels of abstraction work, but they aren't easily understood. Jeff Sent from my iPad > On Oct 20, 2013, at 6:35 PM, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@google.com> wrote: > >> On 20 October 2013 17:30, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: >> On 10/20/13 7:25 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote: > >>> Would this imply that the recommendation would be to have only one >>> schema:name, for the preferred label, and use altLabel and hiddenLabel >>> for variants? It may be conflicting with the possibility (already used?) >>> to have several schema:name for something. >> >> >> Hi, Antoine. Thanks for the detailed explication of this issue. >> >> As someone with a library background, I perhaps have a particularly strict >> interpretation of SKOS. In my field, thesauri exist in equal part to create >> a map of concepts and to control the terminology used for those concepts. >> This latter function is less common in today's web environments, where >> discovery is done on natural language, not controlled terms. Because there >> are still KOS systems that use controlled terms as concept identifiers, I >> would hate to see SKOS preflabel re-used in a less precise manner. >> >> I believe this supports maintaining a distinction between schema:name and >> skos:prefLabel, and not equating the two. > > http://schema.org/name is currently defined as 'The name of the item.' > (you might argue it should say 'a name' not 'the name', but setting > that aside for now) > > The way RDF and schema.org works, means that anything that is 'the > name of the item' is a legit value for this property. Are there any > values for a SKOS-like prefLabel that would not also count as 'a name > of' the item/concept? To the extent concepts have names at all, I'd > guess their preferred labels would all be names. > > If not, i.e. if every preferred label of a concept is also a name, and > if we still want to maintain an explicit notion of 'preferred label', > then this seems a good candidate for describing as a sub-property / > super-property relationship. We've used that notion already in the > Action design, to relate focussed action-type-specific properties to > the broader, vaguer properties on http://schema.org/Action. It might > help here too (even though schema.org term navigation doesn't offer > any support for sub-property links yet). > > Dan > >
Received on Sunday, 20 October 2013 23:49:04 UTC