Peter,
On 24 Jan 2008, at 05:41, Peter Ansell wrote:
I am new to this list, but in a discussion on another list we were
discussing the use of the skos:subject and related items, something
which dbpedia has invested in heavily to represent the wikipedia
category system.
The latest SKOS draft
2008/1/24, Richard Cyganiak:
We couldn't find any indication in the SKOS documentation that
skos:subject should be used *only* for creative works. I also asked on
the SKOS list if this was okay, and the consensus seemed to be that
it's a bit strange, but not illegal.
Well, there is no domain
Hmmm, re-reading some of the SKOS docs I get the feeling that
skos:subject is indeed appropriate only for documents:
http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-skos-core-guide/#secindexing
| These properties [including skos:subject] can be used for subject
| indexing of information resources on the web. Here
All,
I agree with Bernard that SKOS needs a property for attaching
resources to concepts.
The problem with skos:subject at the moment is this: The Core Guide
gives the impression that the domain of skos:subject is documents
only. But there is no explicit domain declared in the vocabulary
Fred,
On 24 Jan 2008, at 13:31, Frederick Giasson wrote:
What is a category for DBPedia?
Answering to this question will tell you if it is the good thing to
do or not.
If one is answering that it is a Wikipedia Category, then I will
answer that it is not the good thing to do in my
Hi Masahide,
If one ask me why? I would answer that it is become many of the
wikipedia categories are classes and in such a case why not defining
them as a Class, and not a category (that could be considered a class
for some sense of that class)?
Wikipedia category is a
Hi Richard,
No. The Wikipedia category system is simply not appropriate as a class
hierarchy. That's not a bug; it serves its purpose well, and the
Wikipedia community likes it that way. It is essentially a tagging
system, where tags themselves can be tagged. See [1] for an in-depth
Hi Richard
See also the other thread about deprecation of skos:subject (I suggest
to close the current thread and follow-up on that one to avoid parallel
discussions)
Richard Cyganiak a écrit :
Hmmm, re-reading some of the SKOS docs I get the feeling that
skos:subject is indeed appropriate
Hi Richard,
In fact, Wikipedia categories can be many things: named entities,
concepts, relations, (something else?)
They certainly all are skos:Concepts. SKOS was created for the purpose
of representing exactly that sort of things -- thesauri, taxonomies,
and tagging schemes -- in RDF.
Antoine,
On 24 Jan 2008, at 18:08, Antoine Isaac wrote:
I'm afraid I have to support all these claims, Richard :-)
I don't remember the precise reference, but I read once that an
antelope becomes a document as soon as it is in a zoo, which makes
quite some sense to me.
I love this
All,
We're in the process of moving the DBpedia HTML frontend (a.k.a.
Pubby) to a new server at the OpenLink premises in Burlington, MA.
This eliminates the cross-atlantic round trip that so far has been
necessary to render every DBpedia page. Extra special thanks go to
Kingsley for
Hi
I'm only starting to stroll in the foothills of mount semantic web but I have
been attempting to use skos subjects in the mashups I've been experimenting
with so I'm risking a probably naive intrusion into this debate .
One of my mashups is a map of football stadiums in England:
12 matches
Mail list logo
