JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for DC-ARCHITECTURE Archives


DC-ARCHITECTURE Archives

DC-ARCHITECTURE Archives


DC-ARCHITECTURE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DC-ARCHITECTURE Home

DC-ARCHITECTURE Home

DC-ARCHITECTURE  August 2015

DC-ARCHITECTURE August 2015

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: dcterms:type and SKOS

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

DCMI Architecture Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:39:37 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (275 lines)

On 8/23/15 4:53 AM, Jan Voskuil wrote:
> Karin, thank you for your insights and the references!
>
> I agree that flexibility is desirable. Would this in your view also
> imply that the range declaration of dcterms:type as rdfs:Class should
> be dropped?

I have mixed feelings about the ranges in dcterms. On one hand, without 
them one has no guidance on usage/expectations, and we know that it's 
not easy to work with properties whose ranges can be either literals or 
IRIs. On the other hand, not everyone has IRIs (yet) for their data. 
(cf. the ISO language codes, ISBNs, etc.) The saving grace is that for 
some common properties the 1.1 vocabulary exists, so if one needs to use 
a literal for "type" one can use dce:type rather than dcterms:type.

>
> As far as the use of SKOS is concerned, the creation of a formal
> thesaurus sounds much more complicated than it is. Instead of
> publishing a list of literals, people should IMHO be stimulated
> wrapping the literals in concepts.

Well, in spite of your HO, you have no control over what others choose 
to do. While SKOS is not difficult, we can't make others use it if they 
decide not to. However, if we want Dublin Core to be useful throughout 
the web of data, we need to keep it as unconstrained as possible.

kc

>
> I believe that from a practical perspective this method is easier
> than publishing formally defined Vocabulary Encoding Schemes (VES),
> which the DC-standard seems to prescribe wherever literals are used
> as property values (independently of whether this is actually done at
> a significant scale). Using a VES, one can write things like
> dcterms:subject "Napoleon"^^ex:myVES. Using simple tooling one could
> instead put all the literals in an Excel-sheet and import them in a
> thesaurus, so that you could then write dcterms:subject
> ex:NapoleonConcept. Subsequently, others could relate their
> terminology to the one in the thesaurus, using standard relations,
> which is not possible with a VES.
>
> Different communities could use different concept schemes (thesauri)
> in their APs to restrict the property values of the same properties.
> -j
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: DCMI Architecture Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: dinsdag 18 augustus 2015 19:49 To:
> [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: dcterms:type and SKOS
>
> Jan,
>
> I believe I understand your use case, but it is only one possible use
> of Dublin Core terms, and I feel it is essential that DC terms be
> suitable for a wide variety of communities. What makes dcterms one of
> the most used vocabularies in the LOV dataset [1] is precisely its
> flexibility. Limiting dcterms:subject to skos:Concepts would likely
> discourage communities whose tradition does not include the creation
> of formal thesauri.
>
> It makes sense to have an agreement with your data sharing partners
> about the expected values for properties. This is the basis for the
> DCMI work on application profiles [2][3] which extend the basic
> vocabulary to meet specific needs. APs also relate to work in
> progress on RDF validation [4][5]. The "best of all possible worlds"
> would be a very general and flexible vocabulary that can be
> integrated into specific applications but that also allows
> interconnection between disparate communities. Machine-actionable
> application profiles could make that possible.
>
> As for the list of terms in the DC type vocabulary[9] - I see it as
> being rather naive. Library of Congress not only has its own list of
> genres [6], it has a list of lists of genres [7]. The total number
> must be in the high three digits. I also find interesting the
> FaBio/CiTO list, that is primarily based on academic articles[8].
> "Type" is definitely a concept within a context, so will be defined
> differently in different communities, as we see already.
>
> kc
>
>
> [1] http://lov.okfn.org [2]
> http://dublincore.org/documents/singapore-framework/ [3]
> http://dublincore.org/documents/profile-guidelines/ [4]
> http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/RDF_Application_Profiles [5]
> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Main_Page [6]
> http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/genreFormSchemes/marcgt.html [7]
> http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/genreFormSchemes.html [8]
> http://sempublishing.sourceforge.net/ [9]
> http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-type-vocabulary/
>
> On 8/17/15 12:56 PM, Jan Voskuil wrote:
>> Hi Dan, and Karen, I've been thinking about the valuable point you
>> raise --- thanks for doing so.
>>
>> Before going on, let me first ask: would you agree on the basic
>> premise on which I started this discussion, namely, that the range
>> of dcterms:type should not be rdfs:Class?
>>
>> The next question is about declaring the range of dcterms:subject
>> and dcterms:type to be skos:Concept. I see your point about
>> usefulness. I think this has to do with two fundamentally different
>> approaches to the notion of "aboutness": the systematic approach
>> versus the encyclopedic approach.
>>
>> In the encyclopedic approach, an article is seen as a set of
>> statements about some RWO or FWO. The set of articles is flat,
>> without a structure (apart from alphabetic ordering by the name of
>> the RWO). This idea is driving Wikipedia and DBPedia and is part of
>> their success and effectivity.
>>
>> In the systematic approach, articles are thought of as being about
>> "subject headings". The subject headings together form a rich
>> associative structure, in which the subject headings are connected
>> to each other, which yields groupings that make sense from some
>> perspective or for some purpose. This implies  a notion of
>> metamodeling. SKOS intends to capture this notion in a manner as
>> concise and simple as possible.
>>
>> Is the systematic approach useful? That is quite a question to
>> pose. It is certainly easy to make fun of (sometimes overly
>> ambitious) attempts made in the past. See Borges' famous and
>> hilarious taxonomy of animals in terms of those that belong to the
>> Emperor, those drawn with a very fine camel hair brush, and some
>> other such categories (see [1]). Another fundamental critique of
>> hierarchical schemes such as DDC and UDC is the " rhizome metaphor"
>> (see [2] and [3]). A beautiful, thoroughly non-philosophical
>> account of the development of ideas underlying the systematic
>> approach is [4]. That said, I think it is fair to say that the
>> systematic approach has its usefulness, warts and all. Probably
>> especially so in specific, delimited domains.
>>
>> Concluding, the statement that something is about something can
>> mean two fundamentally different things, depending on the spirit in
>> which of the two approaches the statement is made.
>>
>> There are two options for dcterms:subject (and dcterms:type).
>>
>> A. We leave the choice open to the user by not specifying a range
>> for dcterms:subject. The property can mean two different things
>> depending on the context in which it is used: a simple case of
>> polysemy or even homonymy (or punning if you like).
>>
>> B. We urge users to make the choice explicitly by declaring
>> dcterms:subject to have skos:Concept as range. In that case, one
>> would say that the Wikipedia article has foaf:focus Bill_Clinton
>> (to which it does not bear the dcterms:subject relation), while the
>> biography fits under a particular subject heading, so that it bears
>> the dcterms:subject relation to that heading, which in turn bears
>> the foaf:focus relation to Bill_Clinton.
>>
>> It seems to me that option B is to be preferred, independent of
>> your commitments towards either one of the two approaches towards
>> aboutness.
>>
>> The reason for this is data quality. In the old days, we were used
>> to, say, put the customer's date of birth in the field called
>> telephone number because that field was not used by applications
>> anyway. And everybody was happy. Now we put our data models on the
>> Web, hoping to achieve unprecedented levels of interoperability at
>> almost no cost at all. We do this in the realization that we cannot
>> expect every data source to always adhere to every minute detail of
>> the model. This is what Antoine pointed out previously: the
>> philosophy schema.org, which says: " In the spirit of "some data is
>> better than none", we will accept this markup [which does not
>> comply to expectations, JV] and do the best we can."
>>
>> This also means that refined data is better than some data. In
>> other words, the more careful data sources are about which
>> particular properties they use, the more value others can extract
>> from them. (Of course, up to a point, where the distinctions become
>> so subtle that they become difficult to understand.)
>>
>> Under option B, a data source that uses dcterms:subject to relate
>> articles to RWOs (and maybe even foaf:focus to relate articles to
>> subject headings) is not a problem. We can happily use the data
>> source, and even manipulate it using a range of methods to make it
>> as valuable as possible. At the same time, however, a "high
>> quality" data source that does make the distinctions as intended
>> yields the same value or more at lower cost. Under option A, there
>> is no real sense in which this data source is different in
>> quality.
>>
>> So, to drive home the point I am (albeit somewhat laboriously)
>> trying to make: in view of the existence and broad use of
>> foaf:focus, it makes sense to restrict dcterms:subject and make the
>> two disjoint in range. As opposed to leave it completely open to
>> use dcterms:subject either as a synonym of foaf:focus or as
>> something else.
>>
>> I hope I am not ranting. Does this make any sense? -Jan
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_Emporium_of_Benevolent_Knowled
>>
>>
ge [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhizome_(philosophy)
>> [3] http://rhizomik.net/html/rhizome/ [4]
>> http://www.catalogingtheworld.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: DCMI Architecture Forum
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dan Matei
>> Sent: maandag 17 augustus 2015 11:46 To:
>> [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: dcterms:type and SKOS
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Jan Voskuil
>> <[log in to unmask]> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:55:22 +0000
>>
>>>
>>> To express the relation between a metamodelling concept
>>> (":NapoleonConcept") and the RWO/FWO (":NapoleonBonaparte"),
>>> foaf:focus fits the bill quite nicely. (((---On a side note: I
>>> think that there should be an equivalent of this property within
>>> the SKOS-namespace.---)))
>>
>>
>> I have difficulties to understand the practical usefulness of the
>> distinction "NapoleonConcept" vs. RWO/FWO "NapoleonBonaparte" :-(
>>
>> How "NapoleonConcept" fits in the definitions:
>>
>> S: (n) concept, conception, construct (an abstract or general idea
>> inferred or derived from specific instances)
>> http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=concept&sub=Search+WordNe
>>
>>
t&o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=1&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&h=
>>
>> or
>>
>> 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. http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#concepts
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Of course my idea of "Monica Bellucci" differs (somehow) of the
>> real Monica Bellucci :-) However...
>>
>> Yes, I can see the usefulness of the distinction between different
>> catalographic identities (as subjects), such as:
>>
>> Mark Twain vs. Samuel Langhorne Clemens
>>
>> Charles Lutwidge Dodgson vs. Lewis Carroll
>>
>> Enea Silvio Piccolomini vs. Pius II
>>
>> or even:
>>
>> Bill Clinton (as himself) Bill Clinton (as governor of Arkansas)
>> Bill Clinton (as president of USA)
>>
>> But to consider them concepts ? Useful ?
>>
>> Dan Matei
>>
>
> -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

February 2024
January 2024
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
September 2022
August 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager