FW: SIOC specification (CTIC)

2006, September 19 - 16:33 — Uldis Bojars

Comments from Fundación CTIC.
________________________________

From: Luis Polo
Subject: SIOC specification (CTIC)

Dear Uldis,

I am Luis Polo from CTIC Foundation (Spain). We have received the invitation
to participate in the SIOC Ontology specification to submit it to the W3C.
We have analyzed the initiative and we consider it is a useful idea to
interlink Web Communities. We would like to support the W3C member
submission. We have two comments:

1) Fisrt of all, Sergio Fernandez, a researcher of our department, has
developped an application, as a research project around the semantic web
technologies, to publish mailing lists´s archives into an RDF format. This
project is called SWAML. The SWAML vocabulary is built upon FOAF and Dublin
Core and is completely compatible with SIOC specification, as you can see it
as a subset of SIOC elements. If you consider it could be a useful
application of SIOC, we can adapt quickly SWAML vocabulary to SIOC and
include the software application as an actual implementation of SIOC. For
more details, you can see http://swaml.berlios.de.

2) About SIOC specification, we have one comment. SIOC is a RDF vocabulary
to describe Online Communities. It has a lot of links with FOAF (and Dublin
Core), so the domain or range of some properties is for example foaf:Person.
Also, the class sioc:User is subclass of foaf:Person. We think this is a
good idea: reusing concepts for another vocabularies. The problem is that
there are some SIOC elements that are semantically identical to some FOAF
and Dublin Core elements but with another URI. So for example, SIOC rewrites
the property dc:creator as sioc:has_creator or foaf:mbox_sha1sum as
sioc:email_sha1. This could be a problem, so you have two syntactic
different elements with the same associated semantics. In SIOC, as sioc:User
is subclass of foaf:Agent, it is also a subclass of foaf:Agent (by
transitivity), so sioc:User would have the property foaf:mbox_sha1sum. Of
course, it will have also sioc:email_sha1. In RDF Universe it is not
contradictory, but redundant (like reinventing the wheel).

We suggest to identify these conflictive elements, eliminate them and then
add their FOAF and Dublin Core counterparts. If you have any comments, feel
free to contact us.

Best Regards,

Luis Polo Paredes
Departamento I+D+i
Fundación CTIC
-Centro Tecnológico de la Información y la Comunicación-
Parque Científico Tecnológico Gijón-Asturias-Spain www.fundacionctic.org

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

Developers

2006, October 6 - 10:35 — terraces

FW: SIOC specification (CTIC)

Hi all,

These comments made me realize there's still some confusion between
sioc:User and foaf:People, as some users think sioc:User is a "user",
not an account.(cf point 2 of original e-mail). I also noticed today
that ODS made the confusion in their SIOC export.

We already mentionned this issue earlier on the list, but as W3C
submission is coming soon, I think we should solve this, especially
when bringing SIOC to a wider audience with less confusion as possible
in people's mind.
Discussing with some on #sioc, it appears sioc:UserAccount could be nice.

What do you think of it ? John, Uldis ?

Alex.

On 9/19/06, Uldis Bojars
wrote:
>
> Comments from Fundación CTIC.
> ________________________________
>
> From: Luis Polo
> Subject: SIOC specification (CTIC)
>
>
> Dear Uldis,
>
> I am Luis Polo from CTIC Foundation (Spain). We have received the invitation
> to participate in the SIOC Ontology specification to submit it to the W3C.
> We have analyzed the initiative and we consider it is a useful idea to
> interlink Web Communities. We would like to support the W3C member
> submission. We have two comments:
>
> 1) Fisrt of all, Sergio Fernandez, a researcher of our department, has
> developped an application, as a research project around the semantic web
> technologies, to publish mailing lists´s archives into an RDF format. This
> project is called SWAML. The SWAML vocabulary is built upon FOAF and Dublin
> Core and is completely compatible with SIOC specification, as you can see it
> as a subset of SIOC elements. If you consider it could be a useful
> application of SIOC, we can adapt quickly SWAML vocabulary to SIOC and
> include the software application as an actual implementation of SIOC. For
> more details, you can see http://swaml.berlios.de.
>
> 2) About SIOC specification, we have one comment. SIOC is a RDF vocabulary
> to describe Online Communities. It has a lot of links with FOAF (and Dublin
> Core), so the domain or range of some properties is for example foaf:Person.
> Also, the class sioc:User is subclass of foaf:Person. We think this is a
> good idea: reusing concepts for another vocabularies. The problem is that
> there are some SIOC elements that are semantically identical to some FOAF
> and Dublin Core elements but with another URI. So for example, SIOC rewrites
> the property dc:creator as sioc:has_creator or foaf:mbox_sha1sum as
> sioc:email_sha1. This could be a problem, so you have two syntactic
> different elements with the same associated semantics. In SIOC, as sioc:User
> is subclass of foaf:Agent, it is also a subclass of foaf:Agent (by
> transitivity), so sioc:User would have the property foaf:mbox_sha1sum. Of
> course, it will have also sioc:email_sha1. In RDF Universe it is not
> contradictory, but redundant (like reinventing the wheel).
>
> We suggest to identify these conflictive elements, eliminate them and then
> add their FOAF and Dublin Core counterparts. If you have any comments, feel
> free to contact us.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> p.
>
> Luis Polo Paredes
> Departamento I+D+i
> Fundación CTIC
> -Centro Tecnológico de la Información y la Comunicación-
> Parque Científico Tecnológico Gijón-Asturias-Spain www.fundacionctic.org
>
>
>
>
> >
>

2006, October 6 - 10:35 — Cloud

FW: SIOC specification (CTIC)

Hullo :)

> These comments made me realize there's still some confusion between
> sioc:User and foaf:People, as some users think sioc:User is a "user",
> not an account.(cf point 2 of original e-mail). I also noticed today
> that ODS made the confusion in their SIOC export.
>
> Discussing with some on #sioc, it appears sioc:UserAccount could be nice.

I can understand the reasons alright, and don't have a major problem
with it. But maybe the problem is that we haven't explained what a User
is properly in SIOC - that's why I've drawn up this picture.

http://sioc-project.org/node/158

I think that saying User instead of UserAccount also says more about
what a Person does AS a User rather than that the UserAccount or profile
does something - e.g. User -> creator_of -> Post seems more appropriate
to me than UserAccount (although you could argue that a Person did
create the post via their UserAccount access to a site rather than as a
User)...

Regarding this as well, I'd like to propose that the Range of account_of
be changed from foaf:Person to foaf:Agent.

I've created a new FAQ section on sioc-project.org where I hope we can
answer these and other common questions/problems.

Thanks,

John.
--

2006, October 6 - 10:35 — terraces

FW: SIOC specification (CTIC)

Hi,

On 9/27/06, John Breslin wrote:
>
> Hullo :)
>
> > These comments made me realize there's still some confusion between
> > sioc:User and foaf:People, as some users think sioc:User is a "user",
> > not an account.(cf point 2 of original e-mail). I also noticed today
> > that ODS made the confusion in their SIOC export.
> >
> > Discussing with some on #sioc, it appears sioc:UserAccount could be nice.
>
> I can understand the reasons alright, and don't have a major problem
> with it. But maybe the problem is that we haven't explained what a User
> is properly in SIOC - that's why I've drawn up this picture.
>
> http://sioc-project.org/node/158
>
> I think that saying User instead of UserAccount also says more about
> what a Person does AS a User rather than that the UserAccount or profile
> does something - e.g. User -> creator_of -> Post seems more appropriate
> to me than UserAccount (although you could argue that a Person did
> create the post via their UserAccount access to a site rather than as a
> User)...
Indeed thinking of User as a Person is better, but when using
foaf:holdsAccount, I expect getting a user account, not 'the person as
a user'.

So it seems it depends if we look at it from the SIOC point of view
(i.e. that's not an account that creates a post, that's a User
(Person) with this account - but is it not the role of foaf:maker to
add the person level behind the account one ?) or FOAF one (when
holdsAccount leads to an online account).

But your schema and mentionning that User is a virtual user / profile
might be enough to get rid of this ambiguity.

> Regarding this as well, I'd like to propose that the Range of account_of
> be changed from foaf:Person to foaf:Agent.
+1
And as foaf:holdsAccount domain is foaf:Agent, it makes sense to do it
Thus, we can have sioc:User for a foaf:Group

> I've created a new FAQ section on sioc-project.org where I hope we can
> answer these and other common questions/problems.
Good idea, (and I've finally got the Irish meaning of sioc :)

Best,

Alex.

> Thanks,
>
> John.
> --
>
> >
>

2006, October 6 - 10:35 — Axel Polleres

FW: SIOC specification (CTIC)

Alexandre Passant wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 9/27/06, John Breslin wrote:
>
>>Hullo :)
>>
>> > These comments made me realize there's still some confusion between
>> > sioc:User and foaf:People, as some users think sioc:User is a "user",
>> > not an account.(cf point 2 of original e-mail). I also noticed today
>> > that ODS made the confusion in their SIOC export.
>> >
>> > Discussing with some on #sioc, it appears sioc:UserAccount could be nice.
>>
>>I can understand the reasons alright, and don't have a major problem
>>with it. But maybe the problem is that we haven't explained what a User
>>is properly in SIOC - that's why I've drawn up this picture.
>>
>>http://sioc-project.org/node/158
>>
>>I think that saying User instead of UserAccount also says more about
>>what a Person does AS a User rather than that the UserAccount or profile
>>does something - e.g. User -> creator_of -> Post seems more appropriate
>>to me than UserAccount (although you could argue that a Person did
>>create the post via their UserAccount access to a site rather than as a
>>User)...
>
> Indeed thinking of User as a Person is better, but when using
> foaf:holdsAccount, I expect getting a user account, not 'the person as
> a user'.

I guess I agree, see my last post.

> So it seems it depends if we look at it from the SIOC point of view
> (i.e. that's not an account that creates a post, that's a User
> (Person) with this account - but is it not the role of foaf:maker to
> add the person level behind the account one ?) or FOAF one (when
> holdsAccount leads to an online account).
>
> But your schema and mentionning that User is a virtual user / profile
> might be enough to get rid of this ambiguity.
>
>
>>Regarding this as well, I'd like to propose that the Range of account_of
>>be changed from foaf:Person to foaf:Agent.
>
> +1

this is definitly a good idea!

> And as foaf:holdsAccount domain is foaf:Agent, it makes sense to do it
> Thus, we can have sioc:User for a foaf:Group
>
>
>>I've created a new FAQ section on sioc-project.org where I hope we can
>>answer these and other common questions/problems.

hmmm, canm/shall we merge this somehow with the related ontologies
document? (I'd still be gald to recieve ocmments on the first draft on
the wiki! ;-) )

axel

>
> >
>

--
Dr. Axel Polleres
email: axel@polleres.net url: http://www.polleres.net/

2006, October 6 - 10:35 — Fred

SIOC v1.08 integration into Talk Digger.

Hi,

I just published the document about the integration of the SIOC
ontology in Talk Digger [1].

Please tell me what you think about the integration if you have the
time to read it. Any comments a more than welcome.

Also, Uldis, remind me to put it on the wiki tomorrow (in prevision
of the W3 submission).

[1] http://tinyurl.com/oyhb2

Take care,

Salutations,

Fred

2006, October 6 - 10:35 — Fred

FW: SIOC specification (CTIC)

Hi Uldis!

Great, good news! :)

Felicitation, and thank you for puting so much time in SIOC's development. It
has a bright future I think!

Take care,

Salutations,

Fred

FW: SIOC specification (CTIC)

FW: SIOC specification (CTIC)

FW: SIOC specification (CTIC)

FW: SIOC specification (CTIC)

FW: SIOC specification (CTIC)

SIOC v1.08 integration into Talk Digger.

FW: SIOC specification (CTIC)

Primary links

Syndicate

User login