Re: vocabs, metadata set, datasets

Jeff,


> I would be happiest if the domain of foaf:focus remained skos:Concept.
> The axioms in SKOS-XL are good enough that I'm willing to believe a set
> of skos:Concepts in a skos:ConceptScheme constitutes a "value
> vocabulary" regardless of whether SKOS-XL is being used explicitly.
>
> I'm less comfortable believing skos:Concepts that *aren't* bound to a
> skos:ConceptScheme qualify for "value vocabulary" status.


I think I can agree with that!

Antoine


> I agree with your assessment of either end of foaf:focus being
> reasonable objects of dc:subject. It would be nice if there was an axiom
> specified somewhere to formalize this.
>
> Jeff
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-xg-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-lld-
>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Antoine Isaac
>> Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 1:03 PM
>> To: public-xg-lld@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: vocabs, metadata set, datasets
>>
>> A very interesting point, Jeff.
>>
>> I'd say that appearing as subject of foaf:focus is a good sign of
> being
>> a value vocabulary. But this restricts it to skos:Concepts, as
>> skos:Concept is the domain of foaf:focus. And I guess some peple
>> (including you!) would like skos-xl:Labels to be potentially counted
> as
>> elements of (some) value vocabularies.
>>
>> Another issue, I think we must leave it open, whether appearing as
>> object of foaf:focus bars from counting as value vocabulary element.
>> Let's consider in VIAF an instance of foaf:Person is the foaf:focus of
>> some skos:Concept.
>> I can imagine that some cases (the rather library-oriented) will like
>> to pick the instance of skos:Concept as, say, the dc:subject of a
> given
>> book . But I can also imagine other choices (more "traditional Linked
>> Data" in their vision?) where the instance of foaf:Person would be
> used
>> directly as the object of their dc:subject statement. In that latter
>> case the value vocabulary is made of the instances of foaf:Person.
>> In fact we could consider that VIAF is a value vocabulary with several
>> (interconnected) type facets ("sub-vocabularies"), in which
>> applications can pick their "values" from as they see fit. And that's
> a
>> consequence of your data design I like very much.
>>
>> Antoine
>>
>>
>>>
>>> OTOH, foaf:focus provides a connection between SKOS and reality
>>> (FOAF/RDA/etc.) that VIAF also uses:
>>>
>>> http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_focus
>>>
>>> I would argue that information on this side of foaf:focus falls into
>> the
>>> "Dataset" category. This could explain the tension Karen noted of
> how
>> to
>>> classify VIAF.
>>>
>>> I'm inclined to believe this foaf:focus pattern is the key to
>> "authority
>>> data" in general and I'm trying to weave it into the use case
> cluster
>>> document. Are people willing to believe foaf:focus provides the same
>>> type of symmetry between "value vocabulary" and "dataset" as it does
>>> between "concept" and "reality"?
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: public-xg-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-lld-
>>>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mark van Assem
>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 8:00 AM
>>>> To: public-xg-lld@w3.org
>>>> Cc: Karen Coyle
>>>> Subject: Re: vocabs, metadata set, datasets
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> As per my action I have written some text [1] to explain the terms
>>>> "dataset, metadata element set, value vocabulary" with feedback
> from
>>>> Karen and Antoine to address the things that don't fit very nicely.
>>>>
>>>> Please let me know what you think, after I've had your input we'll
>> put
>>>> it on the public list to get shot at.
>>>>
>>>> Mark.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> [1]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Library_terminology_informally_explai
>>>> ned#Vocabularies.2C_Element_sets.2C_Datasets
>>>>
>>>> On 28/12/2010 18:40, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>>>> I have been organizing the vocabularies and technologies on the
>>>> archives
>>>>> cluster page [1] and it was a very interesting exercise trying to
>>>>> determine what category some of the "things" fit into. This could
>>>> turn
>>>>> out to be a starting place for our upcoming discussion of our
>>>>> definitions since it has real examples. The hard part seems to be
>>>> value
>>>>> vocabularies v. datasets, and I have a feeling that there will not
>>> be
>>>> a
>>>>> clear line between them.
>>>>>
>>>>> kc
>>>>> [1]
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Cluster_Archives#Vocabularies
>>>> _and_Technologies
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 6 January 2011 19:00:00 UTC