dc:subject vs. sioc:topic

[Stephane Corlosquet]

Hi,

I wish I had received danbri's feedback on RDF in Drupal earlier, but here it is http://danbri.org/words/2010/01/14/549

Given that we're one day before alpha release, there isn't much we can do. The only quick change I can imagine possible is:

1. Use (dcterms) dc:subject as the way of pointing from a document to it’s SKOS subject.

sioc:topic has been on the RDF schema proposal since March 2008: http://groups.drupal.org/node/9311 and I wish someone had suggested this change earlier :( I can quickly roll a patch, but before I go ahead, let me ask: sioc:topic being a subproperty of dc:subject, what is the difference between the two? Why creating sioc:topic at the first place?

If I can have a few +1/-1 for this change with maybe some explanation of the difference, we can hopefully get the patch committed.

Steph.

[Jack Park]

+1
My limited view is that proliferation of property types seems worrisome.

Jack

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "SIOC-Dev" group.
> To post to this group, send email to sioc...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> sioc-dev+u...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/sioc-dev?hl=en.
>
>

[Nathan]

+1 as well; personal view being use what people will sparql at a later
date; and due to the widespread usage of dc:subject odds are when
querying the cloud it'll be used more often.

only q i'd have is dc or dcterms

regards,

Jack Park wrote:
> +1
> My limited view is that proliferation of property types seems worrisome.
>
> Jack
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Stephane Corlosquet
> <scorl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wish I had received danbri's feedback on RDF in Drupal earlier, but here
>> it is http://danbri.org/words/2010/01/14/549
>>
>> Given that we're one day before alpha release, there isn't much we can do.
>> The only quick change I can imagine possible is:
>>

>>> 1. Use (dcterms) dc:subject as the way of pointing from a document to it�s

[Jodi Schneider]

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Nathan <nat...@webr3.org> wrote:

+1 as well; personal view being use what people will sparql at a later
date; and due to the widespread usage of dc:subject odds are when
querying the cloud it'll be used more often.

only q i'd have is dc or dcterms

dcterms, based on both
http://openspring.net/blog/2010/01/12/rdfa-in-drupal-7-last-call-for-feedback-before-alpha-release?
and
http://danbri.org/words/2010/01/14/549

-Jodi

[Jodi Schneider]

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Stephane Corlosquet <scorl...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

I wish I had received danbri's feedback on RDF in Drupal earlier, but here it is http://danbri.org/words/2010/01/14/549

Given that we're one day before alpha release, there isn't much we can do. The only quick change I can imagine possible is:

1. Use (dcterms) dc:subject as the way of pointing from a document to it’s SKOS subject.

sioc:topic has been on the RDF schema proposal since March 2008: http://groups.drupal.org/node/9311 and I wish someone had suggested this change earlier :( I can quickly roll a patch, but before I go ahead, let me ask: sioc:topic being a subproperty of dc:subject, what is the difference between the two? Why creating sioc:topic at the first place?

Based on the spec, here's what I gather:

1) sioc:topic functions as a container for tags and categories.
2) "Users or Usergroups can define topics of interest when their profiles are created or modified." (Topic being more specific in this regard than dcterms:subject)
3) A Container may have topic(s) which can be propagated to Items it contains. (dcterms:subjects don't necessarily propagate in this situation, I think)
http://rdfs.org/sioc/spec/#term_topic

Not sure if any of this is useful/needed in the Drupal usecase. So far arguments for dcterms seem good to me...

-Jodi

If I can have a few +1/-1 for this change with maybe some explanation of the difference, we can hopefully get the patch committed.

Steph.

[Nathan]

Jodi Schneider wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Stephane Corlosquet
> <scorl...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wish I had received danbri's feedback on RDF in Drupal earlier, but here
>> it is http://danbri.org/words/2010/01/14/549
>>
>> Given that we're one day before alpha release, there isn't much we can do.
>> The only quick change I can imagine possible is:
>>

>> 1. Use (dcterms) dc:subject as the way of pointing from a document to it�s

>> sioc-dev+u...@googlegroups.com<sioc-dev%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sioc-dev?hl=en.
>>
>>
>

you could use both.. triples are pretty lightweight in a quad store

[Jodi Schneider]

Stephane,

Out of Dan's feedback, the most important seems to be

"#3 - Distinguish between the description of the person versus their account in the Drupal system; I would use foaf:Person for the human, and sioc:User (a kind of foaf:OnlineAccount) as the drupal account. The foaf property to link from the former to the latter is foaf:account (new name for foaf:holdsAccount)."

I'd add that this distinction is really important, and that if it can be modelled later in the beta or beyond, it would be a boon!

-Jodi

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Stephane Corlosquet <scorl...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SIOC-Dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to sioc...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sioc-dev+u...@googlegroups.com.

[Jack Park]

Recently deeply engaged in adding SIOC to my topic map platform, I
came to the sioc:User designation and thought it to be troublesome in
this sense: a userAccount is one thing, a user is another. That
sioc:User means someone's online account, IMHO, should be specified as
a userAccount; a user could be any foaf:Agent, which is not an
account, unless i'm missing something. What am I missing?

Jack

[Axel Polleres]

Question: in our cck approach
We exported both site vocabulary
properties and there mapped super-properties from external vocabs...
Would that be an option here as well (expose both dc:subject and sioc:topic)?

Just my 2 cents,
Axel

[Axel Polleres]

Didn't go thru

--
--

"For what it's worth, I always aim to please..." (Placebo)

[John Breslin]

Hi all -

Consensus seems to be for dc:subject...

When we created sioc:topic we did so because dc:subject was being used
ambiguously to refer to a literal or a resource depending on who used
it.

Often times, dc:subject referred to a (literal) keyword like a tag or
category name. We wanted sioc:topic to always point to a resource and
not a literal. Assuming that dc:subject could be anything (resource,
literal) we made sioc:topic a sub-type so we would always point to a
resource, in particular, a tag or category as you would have in social
software systems.

Regarding Person vs. User - we still need to vote as to whether to
change User to UserAccount to clarify things. Am happy to do this if
others still agree.

John.

[Stephane Corlosquet]

Hi all,

Thanks for this great feedback! The patch has been committed: http://drupal.org/node/685102

Steph.

[Alexandre Passant]

I'm finally OK with that.
We need to ensure that both can still live together during the transition between both.
owl:equivalentClass + deprecation of sioc:User might work, I'm just wondering it the semantics of owl:equivalentClass will imply that sioc:UserAccount is also deprecated (as with an owl:sameAs) or if that's different ?

Alex.

>
> John.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SIOC-Dev" group.
> To post to this group, send email to sioc...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sioc-dev+u...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sioc-dev?hl=en.
>
>

--
Dr. Alexandre Passant
Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Galway
:me owl:sameAs <http://apassant.net/alex> .

[Paul A Houle]

Nathan wrote:
>
> you could use both.. triples are pretty lightweight in a quad store
>

I'm leaning towards this myself when I'm wearing my "linked data
publisher" hat.

I've actually developed a rich set of predicates for internal use in
the next product I'm building. Although my data ~can~ be described w/
SIOC, I'm planning on exposing a subset of my internal vocabulary to
the outside because it describes my content more precisely. I suppose I
could assert that my properties are sub-properties of SIOC (and other
properties) with OWL, but I want to make things easy and do the
inference for you. If you don't know what to do w/ my properties you
can just ignore them.

As a "linked data consumer", I take the converse approach.

Just as we're never going to get people to use owl:sameAs correctly,
we can't assume complete standardization: a consumer ought to accept
dc:Subject, sioc:Topic and other competing predicates and do what it
takes to make sense of what comes in.

[Stephane Corlosquet]

Following up on some comments:

I'd add that this distinction is really important, and that if it can be modelled later in the beta or beyond, it would be a boon!

Yes, this will definitely be part of the separate contributed RDF module which will be available for people to download. It will provide many extensions to the core mappings (including a mapping editor so people can pick and choose their own mappings to match what their site data model really "mean" in terms of semantics.)

Question: in our cck approach
We exported both site vocabulary
properties and there mapped super-properties from external vocabs...
Would that be an option here as well (expose both dc:subject and sioc:topic)?

Yes. The core is only a small subset of all the flexibility and expressivity RDF offers. The core design is meant to be as light as possible. The rest will go in a downloadable module (see above).

you could use both.. triples are pretty lightweight in a quad store

We'll use dc:subject as default, people will be able to add sioc:topic and more if they feel like it using the separate RDF module. In line with what Paul A Houle and Axel describe, that's what we're doing in the RDF CCK approach which will be ported to Drupal 7 shortly.

Steph.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SIOC-Dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to sioc...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sioc-dev+u...@googlegroups.com.