W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2009

Re: f2f planning - Issue 63

From: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:50:31 +0000
Message-ID: <4B0C5527.1050006@ninebynine.org>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
CC: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "ashok.malhotra@oracle.com" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
There are (at least) a couple of such initiatives in the cultural 
heritage/archaeology community.  One is STAR 
(http://hypermedia.research.glam.ac.uk/kos/star/).  Generally, there's a fair 
amount of interest in using SKOS to refine data expressed using CIDOC CRM in RDF.

There's also been a lot of interest in LCSH expressed in SKOS (Library of
Congress Subject headings), but I'm not personally aware of applications.

#g
--

Jonathan Rees wrote:
> Great. Can you give examples of applications that consume SKOS content
> and do something useful with it? At CC we're doing something like this
> (using NLM MeSH headings in SPARQL queries), but would like to hear
> about other instances.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:26 AM, Felix Sasaki
> <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de> wrote:
>> An example for supporting this point: SKOS can be used to represent a
>> thesaurus in an RDF-based way. A thesaurus can be used e.g. to enhance
>> full-text search ("use all terms which are broader than my search term"). In
>> XQuery full text search, you are able to use the same kind of resource (a
>> thesaurus) with the same purpose (enhance search), but not necessarily
>> relying on RDF for thesaurus representation.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Felix
>>
>> 2009/11/23 Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
>>> I'm with you...  RDF per se has little to do with models of anything,
>>> any more than XML or ASCII does; it's a way of *expressing* models
>>> syntactically, which is the easy part.  (RDF semantics is also helpful
>>> discipline, but also brutally neutral.) You still have to create
>>> vocabularies (ontologies) that do what needs to be done.
>>>
>>> The consumer use cases are the interesting part of the story - linked
>>> data isn't much good if no one's using it - and I think they should be
>>> sought out and/or developed.
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> * Metadata model: what is the "data model" for typical metadata
>>>>> applications -
>>>>> the datatypes of the endpoints?
>>>>> The model is RDF.  We recommend that all metadate be encoded as RDF.
>>>> RDF 'has' a data model -- things you can say. The question remains, I
>>>> think,
>>>> whether it is useful, productive, and appropriate to allow "anything you
>>>> can
>>>> say in RDF" to also be said in metadata.  I think the requirements for
>>>> metadata processing may mean that some relations have a much more
>>>> restricted
>>>> domain.
>>>>
>>>>> Metadata in other formats e.g. RDDL, should be translatable into RDF,
>>>>> or
>>>>> encapsulated in a RDF wrapper.
>>>> It's going the other way that is also important. Imagine an audio player
>>>> (WinAmp, iTunes,  Windows Media Player) in which you had not just title
>>>> and artist and duration, and so on, but allowed any of those to be
>>>> arbitrary RDF assertions. I think the media player would suffer if it
>>>> weren't
>>>> possible to restrict the data model of "artist" to be arbitrary rather
>>>> than the dc:creator.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> * Metadata serialization: how can metadata be encoded in a
>>>>> representation system,
>>>>> be it RDF or something else
>>>>> Metadata is serialized using standard RDF serialization.
>>>> Yes, RDF is one serialization.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> * Metadata vocabularies:  what are appropriate vocabularies for
>>>>> describing various
>>>>> media objects and network services? What is the process by which new
>>>>> vocabularies
>>>>> can or should be developed, described, extended or changed?
>>>>> There exist RDF vocabularies for several domains.  Others need to be
>>>>> created.
>>>> I think it's easy to create vocabularies; the real difficulty is
>>>> vocabulary
>>>> mapping and also the scalability of metadata when merging metadata from
>>>> multiple
>>>> sources.
>>>>
>>>>> * Metadata linking: What are the various ways in which metadata can be
>>>>> associated
>>>>> with "data" or other resources? Link relationships, protocol elements,
>>>>> mechanisms
>>>>> for embedding metadata in various kinds of data?
>>>>> I think this is issue 62:
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/62
>>>> Issue 62 focuses on one way of linking; I don't think it is or should be
>>>> the
>>>> only way.
>>>>
>>>> Larry
>>
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 24 November 2009 21:51:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:31 UTC