Resending; turns out I wasn't subscribed here already (I missed confirmation msg originally). If you respond, please restore the full Cc: list. Thanks! --danbri
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dan Brickley <dan...@danbri.org> Date: Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:16 AM Subject: Re: Using DBpedia resources as skos:Concepts? To: Antoine Isaac <ais...@few.vu.nl> Cc: Richard Cyganiak <rich...@cyganiak.de>, "dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net" <dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net>, SKOS <public-esw-t...@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <pha...@ihmc.us> On 4 Nov 2009, at 08:37, Antoine Isaac <ais...@few.vu.nl> wrote: > Hi Richard, > > I've recently been caught in discussions on the fact that it was not very > good to have "universals" (in your case, concepts) mixed with "particulars" > (in your case, persons). But to tell the truth, in the SKOS Recommendation > there is no axioms stating that skos:Concept is distinct from foaf:Person. So > there is no contradiction. I'll let you judge, maybe Dan and Pat can say more > of it. Sent fat-fingered from my iphone; excuse the lack of detail and citations... My main concern with this idiom is that SKOS is designed for talking about the artifacts of library-like systems which rarely map onto tidy subclass hierarchies. However often these artifacts are 'clearly' individual things or category (class) terms. Since most SKOS properties are for talking about the characteristics of the artifact (admin-related dates, scope notes etc) not the 'thing in the world', and since many thesauri will overlap in scope especially around link-friendly entities like people and place, i see a tension. An older rev of the SKOS spec had a nice example with Henry the 8th or similar, and urged a distinction between him and his lowercase-r-reification as a Concept in SKOS. While this might seem longwinded, and in a sense all things described in rdf are done so from the perspective of some conceptualisation, I am keen that we make sure thesaurus etc admin metadata doesn't get garbled when two or more thesauri are overlaid in the same rdf graph. If we use direct equivalence too enthusiastically this seems a risk. Cheers, Dan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Dbpedia-discussion mailing list Dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
