Re: [Dbpedia-discussion] Using DBpedia resources as skos:Concepts?

[Kingsley Idehen]

Antoine Isaac wrote:
> Kingsley,
>
>  
>>>>> Sorry for causing some misunderstanding: My point was not that you 
>>>>> SHOULD use skos:Concept. What I rather wanted to say is that it 
>>>>> does no harm and that it's already in use for named entites.  This 
>>>>> point arises from the suggestion to use 
>>>>> skos:exactMatch/closeMatch. These properties are 
>>>>> sub-sub-properties of skos:semanticRelation, which entails that 
>>>>> subject and object of these properties are instances of 
>>>>> skos:Concept (since skos:Concept are domain and range for 
>>>>> skos:semanticRelation).
>>>>>  
>>>>> The great advantage of skos:exactMatch/closeMatch (over 
>>>>> owl:sameAs) is that their semantic doesn't smush the resources 
>>>>> with all their properties (like the administrative properties you 
>>>>> mentioned).
>>>> Joachim,
>>>>
>>>> What do you mean by "smush" are you referring to the union 
>>>> expansion that results from combing data from all the data sources 
>>>> in the owl:sameAs relation? I pose my question with the 
>>>> skos:exactMatch description page URL [1] for context. I see 
>>>> Transitivity and Symmetry, which are factors re. decision making by 
>>>> reasoners re: union expansion based on participants in the 
>>>> relation. Note, by "union expansion" I mean the union of all data 
>>>> associated with the data items in the relation.
>>>>
>>>> Primarily, I just want clarification about "smushing",  relative to 
>>>> the property definition exposed by the skos:exactMatch URI,  more 
>>>> than anything else. Thus, far I've simply assumed that 
>>>> skos:exactMatch and owl:sameAs have similar implementation 
>>>> mechanics re. union expansion, 
>>>
>>>
>>> Just to clarify it, in case the mails that came after have not done 
>>> it: using skos:exactMatch should *not* lead to attributing to the 
>>> two resouces that it relates the union of all data that is attached 
>>> to them.
>>>
>>> I don't understand why transitivity and symmetry alone would allow a 
>>> reasoner to infer such "smushing/union expansion". Let's consider a 
>>> ex:connectedByARoad property. I can perfectly make it transitive and 
>>> symmetric, and yet all the towns that this property relates are not 
>>> one and the same.
>> Sure, but the relation you use is neither "owl:sameAs" nor 
>> "skos:exactMatch". I think the subtle item here is that the property 
>> labels do actually matter. ex:connectedByARoad in no way conveys 
>> co-reference. 
>
>
> Er, yes. My comment was havily influenced by your "which are factors 
> re. decision making by reasoners". Labels are not such a factor, so I 
> inferred you were only basing your claim on the formal semantic axioms.
>
>
>> BTW - your analogy is basically similar to a Transitivity example I 
>> put out re. SKOS and DBpedia a few weeks ago [1] :-)
>
> :-)
>
>
>> I think your other response re. Ms. Obama goes back to the Subject 
>> Matter/Heading delineation which I believe is the overarching focal 
>> point of of SKOS (classification by phenotype so to speak). Its about 
>> concept schemes and the hierarchies that may exist within and across 
>> schemes in different data spaces. Whereas, with "owl:sameAs" we are 
>> dealing with similar issues, but the orientation feeds of a genotype, 
>> so to speak.
>
>
> As long as you're ok with the fact that there can be concepts/subject 
> matters that are corresponding to persons (even though they would not 
> be persons themselves), I'm ok...
Sure!

Kingsley


>
> Antoine
>
> [snip]
>
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>> *Von:* Simon Reinhardt [mailto:simon.reinha...@koeln.de]
>>>>> *Gesendet:* Do 05.11.2009 17:35
>>>>> *An:* Neubert Joachim
>>>>> *Cc:* Richard Cyganiak; dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net; 
>>>>> SKOS; Pat Hayes
>>>>> *Betreff:* Re: AW: [Dbpedia-discussion] Using DBpedia resources as 
>>>>> skos:Concepts?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> Neubert Joachim wrote:
>>>&g

Re: [Dbpedia-discussion] Using DBpedia resources as skos:Concepts?

[Kingsley Idehen]

Antoine Isaac wrote:
> Hi Kingsley,
>
>  
>>> Sorry for causing some misunderstanding: My point was not that you 
>>> SHOULD use skos:Concept. What I rather wanted to say is that it does 
>>> no harm and that it's already in use for named entites.  This point 
>>> arises from the suggestion to use skos:exactMatch/closeMatch. These 
>>> properties are sub-sub-properties of skos:semanticRelation, which 
>>> entails that subject and object of these properties are instances of 
>>> skos:Concept (since skos:Concept are domain and range for 
>>> skos:semanticRelation).
>>>  
>>> The great advantage of skos:exactMatch/closeMatch (over owl:sameAs) 
>>> is that their semantic doesn't smush the resources with all their 
>>> properties (like the administrative properties you mentioned).
>> Joachim,
>>
>> What do you mean by "smush" are you referring to the union expansion 
>> that results from combing data from all the data sources in the 
>> owl:sameAs relation? I pose my question with the skos:exactMatch 
>> description page URL [1] for context. I see Transitivity and 
>> Symmetry, which are factors re. decision making by reasoners re: 
>> union expansion based on participants in the relation. Note, by 
>> "union expansion" I mean the union of all data associated with the 
>> data items in the relation.
>>
>> Primarily, I just want clarification about "smushing",  relative to 
>> the property definition exposed by the skos:exactMatch URI,  more 
>> than anything else. Thus, far I've simply assumed that 
>> skos:exactMatch and owl:sameAs have similar implementation mechanics 
>> re. union expansion, 
>
>
> Just to clarify it, in case the mails that came after have not done 
> it: using skos:exactMatch should *not* lead to attributing to the two 
> resouces that it relates the union of all data that is attached to them.
>
> I don't understand why transitivity and symmetry alone would allow a 
> reasoner to infer such "smushing/union expansion". Let's consider a 
> ex:connectedByARoad property. I can perfectly make it transitive and 
> symmetric, and yet all the towns that this property relates are not 
> one and the same.
Sure, but the relation you use is neither "owl:sameAs" nor 
"skos:exactMatch". I think the subtle item here is that the property 
labels do actually matter. ex:connectedByARoad in no way conveys 
co-reference.  BTW - your analogy is basically similar to a Transitivity 
example I put out re. SKOS and DBpedia a few weeks ago [1] :-)

I think your other response re. Ms. Obama goes back to the Subject 
Matter/Heading delineation which I believe is the overarching focal 
point of of SKOS (classification by phenotype so to speak). Its about 
concept schemes and the hierarchies that may exist within and across 
schemes in different data spaces. Whereas, with "owl:sameAs" we are 
dealing with similar issues, but the orientation feeds of a genotype, so 
to speak.

Still looking for the right language, bottom line. What they do is clear 
to me, but I want to be able to communicate (outwards from this 
community) with clarity, esp. as our audience is growing rapidly etc..


Links:

1. 
http://www.mail-archive.com/dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net/msg01208.html

Kingsley
>
> Antoine
>
>
>> but their use targets vary i.e. skos:exactMatch works better for 
>> Concept Schemes (where the world view assumes Named Entities e.g., 
>> "People" aren't Concepts) while owl:sameAs works better for Named 
>> Entities (people, places, and other typical real more things, so to 
>> speak).
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Links:
>>
>> 1. 
>> http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/about/html/http/www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core%01exactMatch
>>  
>>
>>
>> Kingsley
>>> [SNIP]
>>> ..
>>>  
>>> Cheers, Joachim
>>>  
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> *Von:* Simon Reinhardt [mailto:simon.reinha...@koeln.de]
>>> *Gesendet:* Do 05.11.2009 17:35
>>> *An:* Neubert Joachim
>>> *Cc:* Richard Cyganiak; dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net; 
>>> SKOS; Pat Hayes
>>> *Betreff:* Re: AW: [Dbpedia-discussion] Using DBpedia resources as 
>>> skos:Concepts?
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Neubert Joachim wrote:
>>> > In my eyes, it's completely ok to use skos:exactMatch or 
>>> skos:closeMatch
>>> > in a situation like this (I did it myself for the STW T

Re: [Dbpedia-discussion] Using DBpedia resources as skos:Concepts?

[Neubert Joachim]

Hi Richard,
 
In my eyes, it's completely ok to use skos:exactMatch or skos:closeMatch in a 
situation like this (I did it myself for the STW Thesaurus for Economics 
mapping to dbpedia).
 
Thesauri and classifications are not restricted to abstract concepts. Some 
thesauri deal explicitly with individual things, e.g. the widely used Getty 
"Thesaurus of Geographic Names" or "Union List of Artist Names". Other thesauri 
(like STW) have sections (or facets, as Leonard put it) on geografic names 
along with others containing "pure" concepts. SKOS, as I understand it, is 
intended to cover all this and to be used beyond strict class hierarchies or 
class/individual dichotomies.
 
By the way, some of the SKOS properties (especially the 
prefLabel/altLabel/hiddenLabel semantics) can be useful in a broad range of 
applications. Eg. dbpedia itself could be used as a great source for synonym 
candidates by mapping the resources to skos:Concept and the labels for 
dbpedia:redirect resources to skos:altLabel. 
 
Cheers, Joachim




Von: Richard Cyganiak [mailto:rich...@cyganiak.de]
Gesendet: Mi 04.11.2009 01:56
An: dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net; SKOS
Cc: Pat Hayes
Betreff: [Dbpedia-discussion] Using DBpedia resources as skos:Concepts?



Hi,

I want to get some broader feedback and opinion on this question.

There is a use case where an external dataset is modelled in SKOS, and 
we want to map it to DBpedia. Something like:

<http://mydataset/433256>
 a skos:Concept;
 owl:sameAs <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Michelle_Obama>;
 .

I've used owl:sameAs here. Now the problem is that my:433256 is a 
skos:Concept, while dbp:Michelle_Obama is a foaf:Person. I wonder 
wether that's a problem. I can't see any immediate contradiction 
arising from that, but I'm uncertain.

Another option would be to use skos:closeMatch or skos:exactMatch, but 
these are intended for use between skos:Concepts, while I'm trying to 
connect a skos:Concept to a foaf:Person.

The main question, I guess, is wether people in the DBpedia project 
would consider the assertion

 <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Michelle_Obama> a skos:Concept .

to be acceptable or erroneous, or wether SKOS folks tell me that 
skos:Concept is obviously disjoint from foaf:Person.

I know that this is a complex issue, so I'm not really looking for a 
"right" or "wrong" answer. I'm more interested in getting all the pros 
and cons and pitfalls and caveats on the table, so please, if you have 
any opinion on the issue, I want to hear it.

I'm cc'ing Pat Hayes, because he said he's interested in that kind of 
question.

All the best and thanks for your time,
Richard




--
Linked Data Technologist * Linked Data Research Centre
Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI), NUI Galway, Ireland
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
skype:richard.cyganiak
tel:+353-91-49-5711


--
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


--
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

Re: [Dbpedia-discussion] Using DBpedia resources as skos:Concepts?

[Frederick Giasson]

Hi Ross!

Exactly. It is a good example of the usage of umbel:linksEntity. so, it 
links a concept to a related (in terms of aboutness) individual.

So, with these two properties, we have the usecases for: "Concept -> 
Individual" and "Individual -> Concept"

Additionally, you have other properties that handle other usecases such as:

(1) umbel:isLike (Individual -> Individual). You can also reify a 
likelihood weight by reifying the umbel:withLikelihood property)
(2) umbel:isAligned and umbel:linksConcept (Class -> SubjectConcept and 
SubjectConcept -> Class ; and you can reify an alignement weight with 
the umbel:isAligned property).


So, as you cited bellow, the goal is to assert "aboutness and 
likelihood" relationship between: individuals, classes and subject concepts.

So, umbel has two major components: (1) a graph of subject concepts (its 
usage is discussed at length in the documentation) and (2) an ontology 
that relates inviduals and classes to subject concepts (usecases 
discussed in this thread).

http://umbel.org/technical_documentation.html

A new version of the subject concepts framework will be released soon 
(v0.73)


Thanks!


Take care,

Fred
> Is this the sort of scenario where umbel comes into play?  If so, I
> might start understanding what exactly umbel is.
>
> Given what I can parse from the documentation (hairnet over the
> basketball and everything) is that:
> 
>   a skosConcept;
>   umbel:linksEntity ;
>
> might work.  The definition of linksEntity is this:
>
> Property name:  umbel:linksEntity
>
> Description:  Check the definition of umbel:isAbout for the definition
> of this property; linksEntity is the inverse property of isAbout.
>
> Domain:  umbel:SubjectConcept
>
> Range: owl:Thing
>
> Inverse-of: umbel:isAbout
>
> with umbel:isAbout being:
>
> Property name:  umbel:isAbout
>
> Description:  The property umbel:isAbout is used to assert the
> relation between a named entity (individual) and a subject concept
> class. umbel:isAbout relates the named entity (individual) to the
> class through the basis of its subject matter. The relation
> acknowledges that the scope of the class can not be determined solely
> by the aggregation or extent of its associated individual entity
> members, and that the nature of the subject concept class may not
> alone bound or define the individual entity.
>
> Named entities may be related with multiple subject concept classes.
> The domain of umbel:isAbout defines its class description as the class
> of all individuals (owl:Thing) and its range as the class of subject
> concepts (umbel:SubjectConcept), thereby bounding the property's
> proper semantics of associating individuals to their related subject
> concept class(es).
>
> This property is therefore used to create a topical assertion between
> an individual and a subject concept.
>
> Domain: owl:Thing
>
> Range: umbel:SubjectConcept
>
> an umbel:SubjectConcept is a subclass of a skos:Concept.
>
> If this -is- how that's supposed to work, it seems like a work around
> the "aboutness" vs. "isness" issue.
>
> -Ross.
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Richard Cyganiak  wrote:
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>> I want to get some broader feedback and opinion on this question.
>>
>> There is a use case where an external dataset is modelled in SKOS, and we
>> want to map it to DBpedia. Something like:
>>
>> 
>>a skos:Concept;
>>owl:sameAs ;
>>.
>>
>> I've used owl:sameAs here. Now the problem is that my:433256 is a
>> skos:Concept, while dbp:Michelle_Obama is a foaf:Person. I wonder wether
>> that's a problem. I can't see any immediate contradiction arising from that,
>> but I'm uncertain.
>>
>> Another option would be to use skos:closeMatch or skos:exactMatch, but these
>> are intended for use between skos:Concepts, while I'm trying to connect a
>> skos:Concept to a foaf:Person.
>>
>> The main question, I guess, is wether people in the DBpedia project would
>> consider the assertion
>>
>> a skos:Concept .
>>
>> to be acceptable or erroneous, or wether SKOS folks tell me that
>> skos:Concept is obviously disjoint from foaf:Person.
>>
>> I know that this is a complex issue, so I'm not really looking for a "right"
>> or "wrong" answer. I'm more interested in getting all the pros and cons and
>> pitfalls and caveats on the table, so please, if you have any opinion on the
>> issue, I want to hear it.
>>
>> I'm cc'ing Pat Hayes, because he said he's interested in that kind of
>> question.
>>
>> All the best and thanks for your time,
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Linked Data Technologist • Linked Data Research Centre
>> Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI), NUI Galway, Ireland
>> http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
>> skype:richard.cyganiak
>> tel:+353-91-49-5711
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>
>   



---

Re: [Dbpedia-discussion] Using DBpedia resources as skos:Concepts?

[Jürgen Jakobitsch]

hi,

here's my two cents.

0. i think the question implies (psycho lingually) that mrs. obama
   IS really a foaf:Person. i think she's (also) DESCRIBED as a foaf:Person. 
1. describing what really is, is hard enough - triple so with triples.   
2. it depends on who's looking at the data.
   2.1. i personally dont't consider mrs. obama to be a
- a foaf:Person
- a foaf:Agent
- a geo:SpatialThing
- a skos:Concept or whatever class, most certainly not a poor 
owl:Thing.
   2.2. a reasoner with limited access to data, say your's and dbpedia would 
just find that this resource has two types, weather sensefull or not.
   2.3  a reasoner (more an intelligent agent) with access to all data, would
most certainly find a triple somewhere, that states that a skos:Concept
disjoints with a foaf:Person and conclude that humans (hm.. they're all
owl:Things... tomorrow i use them as duracell:batteries..) are a quite 
contraditory breed.
3. consindering normal daily speaking reveals that asserting facts with owl has 
it's weaknesses and
   that a reasoner who sees these triple must be humanly intelligent.
   - mrs obama is a woman
   - mrs obama is the first lady
   - what mrs. obama means to me, is that  (so she's an abstract concept)
   - yesterday i saw mrs. obama playing football (soccer)
   - my mother is a woman

wkr www.turnguard.com



- Original Message -
From: "Richard Cyganiak" 
To: dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net, "SKOS" 
Cc: "Pat Hayes" 
Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2009 1:56:56 AM GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / 
Bern / Rome / Stockholm / Vienna
Subject: [Dbpedia-discussion] Using DBpedia resources as skos:Concepts?

Hi,

I want to get some broader feedback and opinion on this question.

There is a use case where an external dataset is modelled in SKOS, and  
we want to map it to DBpedia. Something like:

<http://mydataset/433256>
 a skos:Concept;
 owl:sameAs <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Michelle_Obama>;
 .

I've used owl:sameAs here. Now the problem is that my:433256 is a  
skos:Concept, while dbp:Michelle_Obama is a foaf:Person. I wonder  
wether that's a problem. I can't see any immediate contradiction  
arising from that, but I'm uncertain.

Another option would be to use skos:closeMatch or skos:exactMatch, but  
these are intended for use between skos:Concepts, while I'm trying to  
connect a skos:Concept to a foaf:Person.

The main question, I guess, is wether people in the DBpedia project  
would consider the assertion

 <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Michelle_Obama> a skos:Concept .

to be acceptable or erroneous, or wether SKOS folks tell me that  
skos:Concept is obviously disjoint from foaf:Person.

I know that this is a complex issue, so I'm not really looking for a  
"right" or "wrong" answer. I'm more interested in getting all the pros  
and cons and pitfalls and caveats on the table, so please, if you have  
any opinion on the issue, I want to hear it.

I'm cc'ing Pat Hayes, because he said he's interested in that kind of  
question.

All the best and thanks for your time,
Richard




-- 
Linked Data Technologist • Linked Data Research Centre
Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI), NUI Galway, Ireland
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
skype:richard.cyganiak
tel:+353-91-49-5711


--
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

--
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

Re: [Dbpedia-discussion] Using DBpedia resources as skos:Concepts?

[Alexandre Passant]

Hi,

On 4 Nov 2009, at 00:56, Richard Cyganiak wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I want to get some broader feedback and opinion on this question.
>
> There is a use case where an external dataset is modelled in SKOS, and
> we want to map it to DBpedia. Something like:
>
> 
> a skos:Concept;
> owl:sameAs ;
> .
>
> I've used owl:sameAs here. Now the problem is that my:433256 is a
> skos:Concept, while dbp:Michelle_Obama is a foaf:Person. I wonder
> wether that's a problem. I can't see any immediate contradiction
> arising from that, but I'm uncertain.
>
> Another option would be to use skos:closeMatch or skos:exactMatch, but
> these are intended for use between skos:Concepts, while I'm trying to
> connect a skos:Concept to a foaf:Person.
>
> The main question, I guess, is wether people in the DBpedia project
> would consider the assertion
>
>  a skos:Concept .
>
> to be acceptable or erroneous, or wether SKOS folks tell me that
> skos:Concept is obviously disjoint from foaf:Person.

I think that is the question that should be answered here.
The SKOS spec says: "A SKOS concept can be viewed as an idea or  
notion; a unit of thought. However, what constitutes a unit of thought  
is subjective, and this definition is meant to be suggestive, rather  
than restrictive."

So, do the SKOS implementors consider that, while subjective, anything  
can be allowed to go under skos:Concept ?
If not, shouldn't a disjunction be introduced in SKOS to prevent that ?

I find all these SKOS properties more that useful, but that  
subjectivity regarding skos:Concept is imo an issue - I personally  
limit the use of skos:Concept to non-physical objects / abstract  
notions, but since that's subjective, someone else will use it for  
anything, e.g. foaf:Person, and may lead to disagreement between us -  
and related applications.

Thanks,

Alex.


>
> I know that this is a complex issue, so I'm not really looking for a
> "right" or "wrong" answer. I'm more interested in getting all the pros
> and cons and pitfalls and caveats on the table, so please, if you have
> any opinion on the issue, I want to hear it.
>
> I'm cc'ing Pat Hayes, because he said he's interested in that kind of
> question.
>
> All the best and thanks for your time,
> Richard
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Linked Data Technologist • Linked Data Research Centre
> Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI), NUI Galway, Ireland
> http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
> skype:richard.cyganiak
> tel:+353-91-49-5711
>
>
> --
> 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

--
Dr. Alexandre Passant
Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Galway
:me owl:sameAs  .







--
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

[Dbpedia-discussion] Using DBpedia resources as skos:Concepts?

[Richard Cyganiak]

Hi,

I want to get some broader feedback and opinion on this question.

There is a use case where an external dataset is modelled in SKOS, and  
we want to map it to DBpedia. Something like:


 a skos:Concept;
 owl:sameAs ;
 .

I've used owl:sameAs here. Now the problem is that my:433256 is a  
skos:Concept, while dbp:Michelle_Obama is a foaf:Person. I wonder  
wether that's a problem. I can't see any immediate contradiction  
arising from that, but I'm uncertain.

Another option would be to use skos:closeMatch or skos:exactMatch, but  
these are intended for use between skos:Concepts, while I'm trying to  
connect a skos:Concept to a foaf:Person.

The main question, I guess, is wether people in the DBpedia project  
would consider the assertion

  a skos:Concept .

to be acceptable or erroneous, or wether SKOS folks tell me that  
skos:Concept is obviously disjoint from foaf:Person.

I know that this is a complex issue, so I'm not really looking for a  
"right" or "wrong" answer. I'm more interested in getting all the pros  
and cons and pitfalls and caveats on the table, so please, if you have  
any opinion on the issue, I want to hear it.

I'm cc'ing Pat Hayes, because he said he's interested in that kind of  
question.

All the best and thanks for your time,
Richard




-- 
Linked Data Technologist • Linked Data Research Centre
Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI), NUI Galway, Ireland
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
skype:richard.cyganiak
tel:+353-91-49-5711


--
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