Re: [tm-pubsubj] A bit of context RE: [tm-pubsubj] RE: [VM,ALL] Revised scope statement

[peter@justbrown.net]

This is really useful info. but only underlines ever
more the need for some "joined up" thinking even
*within* OASIS: the eGov TC is doing related work on
this, as has the ubl, and ebXML RegRep TCs...

The seminar in Norway next week on "seantic
interoperability"[1], at which a few OASIS TC people
will be present, might move forward on some of the
organisational concerns...

Peter

[1] http://www.brreg.no/workshop/

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 13:58:00 +0200, "Bernard Vatant"
wrote:

> 
> 
> The previous message is forwarded from a thread in W3C
> SWBPD WG about the definition of a
> "Vocabulary Management" Task Force, of which scope and
> objectives are as close as can be
> to PubSubj's.
> 
> You can follow the thread (and jump in if needed) at
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Jun/0066.html
> 
> where the TF is defined.
> 
> Bernard Vatant
> Senior Consultant
> Knowledge Engineering
> Mondeca - www.mondeca.com
> bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
> 
> 
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Bernard Vatant
> [mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com]
> > Envoye : jeudi 17 juin 2004 11:30
> > A : SW Best Practices
> > Cc : tm-pubsubj
> > Objet : [tm-pubsubj] RE: [VM,ALL] Revised scope
> statement
> >
> >
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > Thanks for your clarifications
> >
> > > According to
> http://www.w3.org/2004/03/thes-tf/mission, the
> > > THES/PORT Task Force wants to focus on guidelines
> and tools
> > > for representing structured vocabularies using
> RDF/OWL.
> >
> > Yes
> >
> > > To my way of thinking, the Vocabulary Management
TF
> would,
> > > in contrast, focus on the identification of terms
> (and of
> > > versions of terms and sets of terms) and on
> policies and
> > > practices related to the identification of terms.
> >
> > The real issue here is to know if it makes sense to
> identify terms (or anything else)
> > independently of any application context. For
> example, in a Thesaurus, the application
> > context of a term (i.e. its contextual definition)
is
> expressed by its BT, NT, RT, UF,
> > USE, Scope Note ... If you strip a term off all this
> contextual information,
> > what's left?
> > a name? a URI? A bare identifier without any
> identification context is as useful as a
> > credit card number outside any banking system.
> > IOW, relationships between identification and
> contextual definition are tricky to
> > entangle, and setting generic term identification
> valid for *any* context seems very
> > difficult (read : barely possible).
> >
> > > I sense that we might plausibly agree on some
basic
> principles
> > > regarding identification and on the need to
> articulate one's
> > > policies, but that there is still "an evolving
> diversity" of
> > > approaches towards documenting, representing, and
> publishing
> > > a vocabulary.
> > >
> > > But that's okay -- at that point, the VM TF could
> simply point
> > > off to other documents and practices such as the
> the THES/PORT
> > > TF note and the OASIS Published Subjects work you
> cite below.
> >
> > If that means : There is a generic question of term
> identification, generic principles
> > that can be set in the SW context (see below), but
> specific ways to apply those
> > principles
> > always depend on context (e.g. Thesaurus,
Ontologies,
> Topic Maps, Taxonomies ...) then I
> > agree.
> > BTW such an approach could help to get out of the
> endless debate on URI meaning, by
> > stressing the (IMO obvious) fact that whatever an
> identifier identifies
> > necessarily always
> > assumes an application context, and that the Web
> (semantic or otherwise) can barely be
> > considered a univocal application context ...
> >
> > > > 2. I share the concern expressed by Alan about
> "terminological" vs
> > > "conceptual" approaches
> > > > of Vocabulary, and the need for clarification
> about it in the SW community.
> > > SKOS input is
> > > > certainly to be brought to the table, as well as
> current debates about use of
> > > dc:subject
> > > > in various places.
> > >
> > > My instinct would be to cite such debates where
> appropriate
> > > but to put alot of these issues out of scope for
> the VM TF
> > > note itself and focus on lower-hanging fruit.  For
> example,
> > > can we agree that terms should be both identified
> with URIs
> > > and labelled with human language?
> >
> > Hopefully this is a reasonable consensus basis.
> >
> > > > 3. It strikes me how the scope and objectives
are
> quite similar to those we
> > set three
> > > > years ago when founding the OASIS Published
> Subjects Technical Committee:
> > > >
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=tm-pubsubj
> > > > Note that this TC work has been in sort of
> standby for a year or so, out of
> > > both lack of
> > > > task force, and lack of consensus about how to
> tackle further deep the
> > details of very
> > > > difficult issues left on the table:
> > > >
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tm-pubsubj/docs/recommendations/issues.htm
> > > > even if a very generic recommendation was
> eventually released in 2003:
> > > >
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/3050/pubsubj-pt1-1.02-cs.pdf
> > > >
> > > > I hope this work "as is" could be food for
> thought for this TF.
> > >
> > > The generic recommendation is nicely written.
> >
> > Congratulations passed to the TC list - and
> particularly to Steve Pepper.
> >
> > > I read it as
> > > saying, in essence: "Subject headings intended for
> use with
> > > Topic Maps should be identified with URIs,
labelled
> with human
> > > language, accompanied with a statement of intended
> use, and
> > > described with metadata."
> > > If this paraphrase does justice
> > > to the recommendation, then it would seem to fit
> perfectly
> > > with what I think the VM TF note should say.
> >
> > Agreed, with some minor corrections to your
> paraphrase.
> > 1. "Subject headings" is somehow a restriction of
> scope of PubSubj recommendation, which
> > is about "subjects" in the widest possible sense,
not
> only those defined in
> > vocabularies.
> > But this restriction is valid in VM TF scope.
> >
> > 2. Topic Maps is the original application context
for
> PSI. But as the
> > introduction of the
> > quoted recommendation hopefully makes clear, it's
not
> the only one.
> >
> > 3. The "human language label" requirement is also a
> restriction of the PubSubj
> > recommendation, which simply states that a subject
> indicator should be "human
> > interpretable". Think about the specific shade of
> blue defined by the RGB code #021A81.
> > This is barely a "human language label", but the
> color itself is pretty well defined by
> > the "human readable" subject indicator
> http://mediagods.com/tools/rgb2hex.html?464,294
> >
> > > The open issues, on the other hand, seem to shade
> off into
> > > community-specific philosophy with regard to the
> nature of the
> > > terms identified and of the relationships among
> terms.  They
> > > reflect that "evolving diversity" of choices about
> which "good
> > > practice" may for valid historical reasons be
still
> unclear --
> > > things like "# versus /", the descriptive
> attributes of terms,
> > > and details on publishing related documentation
and
> metadata.
> > >
> > > Again, for such issues of "evolving diversity", I
> think the
> > > VM TF note should simply summarize and point to
> ongoing work.
> > > The VM TF membership would be hopefully diverse
> enough that we
> > > could among ourselves come up with a reasonably
> representative
> > > set of relevant citations.
> >
> > Agreed
> >
> > Bernard
> >
> > Bernard Vatant
> > Senior Consultant
> > Knowledge Engineering
> > Mondeca - www.mondeca.com
> > bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
> >
> >
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > De : public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
> > > [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]De la part
de
> Thomas Baker
> > > Envoye : jeudi 17 juin 2004 05:30
> > > A : Bernard Vatant
> > > Cc : Thomas Baker; SW Best Practices
> > > Objet : Re: [VM,ALL] Revised scope statement
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 06:05:18PM +0200, Bernard
> Vatant wrote:
> > > > I have a few general comments about this TF
> proposal.
> > > >
> > > > 1. Seems to me there is a great deal of overlap
> with PORT, alias THES, TF.
> > In fact, I
> > > > understand VM work to be in many respects an
> extension or generalization of
> > THES work,
> > > > since a Thesaurus is a specific organization of
a
> Vocabulary for a specific
> > > application
> > > > (unless I miss something). How will the two TF
> define their specific scope?
> > >
> > > According to
> http://www.w3.org/2004/03/thes-tf/mission, the
> > > THES/PORT Task Force wants to focus on guidelines
> and tools
> > > for representing structured vocabularies using
> RDF/OWL.
> > >
> > > To my way of thinking, the Vocabulary Management
TF
> would,
> > > in contrast, focus on the identification of terms
> (and of
> > > versions of terms and sets of terms) and on
> policies and
> > > practices related to the identification of terms.
> > >
> > > I sense that we might plausibly agree on some
basic
> principles
> > > regarding identification and on the need to
> articulate one's
> > > policies, but that there is still "an evolving
> diversity" of
> > > approaches towards documenting, representing, and
> publishing
> > > a vocabulary.
> > >
> > > But that's okay -- at that point, the VM TF could
> simply point
> > > off to other documents and practices such as the
> the THES/PORT
> > > TF note and the OASIS Published Subjects work you
> cite below.
> > >
> > > > 2. I share the concern expressed by Alan about
> "terminological" vs
> > > "conceptual" approaches
> > > > of Vocabulary, and the need for clarification
> about it in the SW community.
> > > SKOS input is
> > > > certainly to be brought to the table, as well as
> current debates about use of
> > > dc:subject
> > > > in various places.
> > >
> > > My instinct would be to cite such debates where
> appropriate
> > > but to put alot of these issues out of scope for
> the VM TF
> > > note itself and focus on lower-hanging fruit.  For
> example,
> > > can we agree that terms should be both identified
> with URIs
> > > and labelled with human language?
> > >
> > > > 3. It strikes me how the scope and objectives
are
> quite similar to those we
> > set three
> > > > years ago when founding the OASIS Published
> Subjects Technical Committee:
> > > >
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=tm-pubsubj
> > > > Note that this TC work has been in sort of
> standby for a year or so, out of
> > > both lack of
> > > > task force, and lack of consensus about how to
> tackle further deep the
> > details of very
> > > > difficult issues left on the table:
> > > >
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tm-pubsubj/docs/recommendations/issues.htm
> > > > even if a very generic recommendation was
> eventually released in 2003:
> > > >
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/3050/pubsubj-pt1-1.02-cs.pdf
> > > >
> > > > I hope this work "as is" could be food for
> thought for this TF.
> > >
> > > The generic recommendation is nicely written.  I
> read it as
> > > saying, in essence: "Subject headings intended for
> use with
> > > Topic Maps should be identified with URIs,
labelled
> with human
> > > language, accompanied with a statement of intended
> use, and
> > > described with metadata."  If this paraphrase does
> justice
> > > to the recommendation, then it would seem to fit
> perfectly
> > > with what I think the VM TF note should say.
> > >
> > > The open issues, on the other hand, seem to shade
> off into
> > > community-specific philosophy with regard to the
> nature of the
> > > terms identified and of the relationships among
> terms.  They
> > > reflect that "evolving diversity" of choices about
> which "good
> > > practice" may for valid historical reasons be
still
> unclear --
> > > things like "# versus /", the descriptive
> attributes of terms,
> > > and details on publishing related documentation
and
> metadata.
> > >
> > > Again, for such issues of "evolving diversity", I
> think the
> > > VM TF note should simply summarize and point to
> ongoing work.
> > > The VM TF membership would be hopefully diverse
> enough that we
> > > could among ourselves come up with a reasonably
> representative
> > > set of relevant citations.
> > >
> > > > Looking into the details, I found at least a
> dozen of very difficult and open
> > > issues on
> > > > the table. The objective of capturing the state
> of the art for all of them
> > in a single
> > > > technical note seems highly challenging, to say
> the least. So I was about to
> > > say "count me
> > > > in" for this TF ... but OTOH I'm a bit scared to
> get lost again in a known maze :(
> > >
> > > It was precisely this fear that motivated me to
ask
> for a
> > > conference call.  I agree we could easily get
> bogged down by
> > > wading too far into detail.  The diversity of
> trees, however,
> > > should perhaps not prevent us from stepping back
> and describing
> > > the forest.
> > >
> > > Tom
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dr. Thomas Baker                       
> Thomas.Baker@izb.fraunhofer.de
> > > Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven        
> mobile +49-160-9664-2129
> > > Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft                         
> work +49-30-8109-9027
> > > 53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany                   
> fax +49-2241-144-2352
> > > Personal email: thbaker79@alumni.amherst.edu
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be
removed
> from the roster of the
> > OASIS TC), go to
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tm-pubsubj/members/leave_workgroup.php.
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed
> from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tm-pubsubj/members/leave_workgroup.php.