atom feed7 messages in org.w3.public-lodRe: SKOS, owl:sameAs and DBpedia
FromSent OnAttachments
Yves RaimondMar 24, 2010 8:56 am 
Dan BrickleyMar 24, 2010 9:01 am 
Yves RaimondMar 24, 2010 9:08 am 
PrateekMar 24, 2010 9:14 am 
Dan BrickleyMar 24, 2010 9:15 am 
Yves RaimondMar 24, 2010 9:19 am 
Bernard VatantMar 24, 2010 9:37 am 
Subject:Re: SKOS, owl:sameAs and DBpedia
From:Bernard Vatant (bern@mondeca.com)
Date:Mar 24, 2010 9:37:33 am
List:org.w3.public-lod

Hi all

see also http://wiki.foaf-project.org/w/term_focus

However, I'd like to understand why a sameAs would be bad here, I have the intuition it might be, but am really not sure. It looks to me like there's no resource out there that couldn't be a SKOS concept as well (you may want to use anything for categorisation purpose --- the loose "categorisation" relationship being encoded in the predicate, not the type). If it can't be, then I am beginning to feel slightly uncomfortable about SKOS :-)

Because conceptualisations of things as SKOS concept are distinct from the things themselves. If this weren't the case, we couldn't have diverse treatment of common people/places/artifacts in multiple SKOS thesauri, since sameAs merging would mangle the data. SKOS has lots of local administrative info attached to each concept which doesn't make sense when considered to be properties of the thing the concept is a conceptualization of.

I'm glad to see those things expressed so neatly, thanks Dan for this!

Another example to hit this nail, in which I'm currently deeply engaged : evolution of concepts and concept schemes over time. A concept can for example be renamed or moved in a given scheme. The descriptions of the "same" concept in two different versions of the concept scheme can therefore be distinct, IOW you'll have two different skos:Concept having different URIs, with different descriptions ruling out the use of owl:sameAs. But to capture the fact that they have the same referent, they would share the same value of foaf:focus.

BTW for those interested in this issue, after discussion with Antoine Isaac yesterday, we (he) set a new page about it on SW wiki: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/SKOS/Issues/ConceptEvolution

The first reference paper by Joseph Tennis introduces the notion of "abstract concept" vs "concrete concept" (the one instanciated in a concept scheme). In foaf parlance, the former would be the "focus" of the latter.

Bernard

---------------------------------------------------- Mondeca 3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France Web: http://www.mondeca.com Blog: http://mondeca.wordpress.com