- From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:58:45 -0000
- To: "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Hi Antoine, > Unfortunately I've got no strong opinion on this. > Perhaps you could try and adapt the vocabulary for the > "simple extension" proposal for ISSUE-26 [1]. that is, adding > "Resource" > whenever a property indeed targets resourcers instead of literals... I could live with that. Although, technically speaking, literals are resources too. In the RDF semantics, everything is a resource. This might seem like a technical point, but I do like to stick as strictly as possible to the terminology used in the RDF semantics. Cheers, Al. > > Cheers, > > Antoine > > [1] > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBet > weenLabels/ProposalThree > >> OK for the example. Actually I thought you should have > >> seeLabelRelation in SKOS-XL because labelRelated is there. > >> But I missed that the labelRelated from your SKOS-XL proposal is > >> actually dedicated to relations between labels as reources. > >> Mea maxima culpa, I was too quick. > >> My guilt being acknowledged, I would however blame you ;-) > for having > >> exactly the same property and class names in both > >> skos: and skos-xl: > >> namespaces. I find this really confusing, even if of course that's > >> perfectly legal. > >> > > > > :) What would you call them instead? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Alistair. > > > > > > > > > > > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Antoine > >> > >> > >>> Hi Antoine, > >>> > >>> I didn't forget about the skos:seeLabelRelation property in > >>> > >> my SKOS-XL sketch [2]. There is no need to mention it. > >> > >>> Consider the following two graphs. > >>> > >>> First graph, using SKOS (Core) only ... > >>> > >>> ex:MyConcept a skos:Concept; > >>> skos:prefLabel "FAO"@en; > >>> skos:altLabel "Food and Agriculture Organisation"@en; > >>> skos:seeLabelRelation ex:MyLabelRelation. > >>> > >>> ex:MyLabelRelation a skos:LabelRelation; > >>> skos:labelRelated "FAO"@en; > >>> skos:labelRelated "Food and Agriculture Organisation"@en. > >>> > >>> Second graph, using SKOS (Core) plus SKOS-XL ... > >>> > >>> ex:MyConcept a skos:Concept; > >>> skos-xl:prefLabel ex:LabelX; > >>> skos-xl:altLabel ex:LabelY; > >>> skos:seeLabelRelation ex:MyLabelRelation. > >>> > >>> ex:MyLabelRelation a skos:LabelRelation; > >>> skos-xl:labelRelated ex:LabelX; > >>> skos-xl:labelRelated ex:LabelY. > >>> > >>> ex:LabelX a skos-xl:Label; > >>> skos-xl:plainLiteralForm "FAO"@en. > >>> > >>> ex:LabelY a skos-xl:Label; > >>> skos-xl:plainLiteralForm "Food and Agriculture > Organisation"@en. > >>> > >>> Note that the second graph entails the first. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Alistair. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> 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: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl] > >>>> Sent: 23 November 2007 22:31 > >>>> To: Miles, AJ (Alistair) > >>>> Cc: Jon Phipps; Daniel Rubin; public-swd-wg@w3.org; Alan > Ruttenberg > >>>> Subject: Re: SKOS-XL (was RE: SKOS/ synonym provenance > >>>> (ISSUE-27 AnnotationOnLabel)) > >>>> > >>>> Hi Alistair, > >>>> > >>>> Apart from the formal concerns I expressed in my > previous mail, I > >>>> just wanted to say that I had also some technical doubts. Mainly > >>>> regarding the correspondence between the > >>>> > >> "label-as-resource" pattern > >> > >>>> and the "minimal label relation" > >>>> one: your rules do not consider the attachment of the > >>>> > >> ex:fooRelation > >> > >>>> to the considered instances of skos:Concept. > >>>> > >>>> This raises again the issue I mentioned once about the > >>>> > >> minimal label > >> > >>>> relation [4] also lacking a story. > >>>> What is the story for contextualizing the "reified" > >>>> relationship between labels? In [4] the relationship resource is > >>>> linked - via a seeLabelRelation property - to the > concept to which > >>>> the labels themselves are attached. > >>>> I already mentioned the problem in a telecon. If I remember > >>>> correctly, you said that you would attach the reified > >>>> > >> relationship to > >> > >>>> each of the concepts to which the original literals are > attached. > >>>> This can be doable, but I think it might raise some > >>>> > >> problems one day, > >> > >>>> and in any case miss sound justification. The fact that > >>>> > >> you forgot it > >> > >>>> in [2] could be a hint :-p > >>>> > >>>> Is it because the problem is not important, contrary to > >>>> > >> what I think, > >> > >>>> or is there really something? > >>>> [And of course this should not hide the fact that the > >>>> "label-as-resource" or "simple extension" lacks a story. > >>>> > >> Here I agree > >> > >>>> with you...] > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> > >>>> Antoine > >>>> > >>>> [4] > >>>> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBet > >>>> weenLabels/ProposalFour > >>>> [5] > >>>> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Nov/0063.html > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> 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: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > -- 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
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 17:59:38 UTC