 Okay, alright. So the first thing now, I'm aware that in this group there are people who are well across what vocabularies are and also formal vocabularies and technical vocabularies, and then there are people who use some of that. So I'm going to start right at the beginning, and it's only 10 minutes, so if you know all about it, you can dual task or something, multitask. So people can do something else if they know the material, but it's only 10 minutes. Okay, Kim, can you still hear me? There was some issue there. Yes, I can hear you. Right, okay, alright. So the first thing I'm going to do is just to describe in a few minutes the different terms that we come across that describe vocabularies themselves because there's a lot of confusion about vocabularies and ontologies and so on, usually. So I'll just go through a couple of little definitions here. So I think everyone on this call would know what a dictionary is, and we're talking about an opposite in the dictionary start thing. They've been in use for a couple of centuries. They let you come up with definitions for words, find definitions and so on at terms. And in addition to that definitional role, they also usually, well, they are a controlled list. What is in the dictionary is in the dictionary, and you could say something like in a game of scrabble, you can only use words from a certain dictionary. So that becomes a controlled list. That dictionary is now the only place from which you can get words. And of course, the authority is to how you spell something, synonyms and so on. It may have the Sorus element in there as well. So I think you know what dictionaries are, and the definition of a dictionary is still applicable to everything you do in the digital and IDF and other ontology spaces. So now a vocabulary. I think a vocabulary, it doesn't have to have all the features of a dictionary. It could just be a list of terms that are used in a certain scenario. So you could say the vocabulary of all the words that someone can use is, you know, this enormous list, which doesn't have any definition associated with it. So, I mean, we see this in computer land where we type in a work document and it comes up with a spell check. Now that's being informed by a list of words. It doesn't necessarily have the definitions of the words, but whether the word exists or not, how you spell it in that list. Now controlled lists. Controlled lists, I mean, I said in the note there, they're explained by the words. It's the list that's controlled. And where this gets a little bit interesting for us in this vocabulary land is that usually we have some interesting arrangement as to how a list is controlled. So we may say something like, there is a consortium of parties in some research field that wants to control a particular list. And so the easiest thing you could do, of course, would be to put a list online and have some governance mechanism that allows people to update that list. So some good examples of that for this community and for live scientific communities are things like the climate and forecast conventions for net CDF and for atmospheric data. There's a body, the CF administration group, and they maintain and control this. And they do and they can maintain it just as a text file on the way. You know, here are all the terms in our recognized term list and it's controlled. So I think that's fairly straightforward. But of course, yes, you can control this either by one person or an organization or a consortia. Okay, so a slightly more interesting vocab and a various guide to consider is a phoconomy. So I define phoconomies and there are some works that have defined phoconomies including and I haven't got the reference here. The first time the word was coin was a guy on a blog post, a technical blog, and he's defined it in this way and that definition still stands. I'm going to approximate that definition now. It's really an accretive tag list. So it's a list of tags that you can apply to digital objects or I guess if you want to write them down, non-digital objects. It's accretive, so it's additive. What we're talking about here is something that was born out of a Web 2.0 scenario where people wanted to be able to have multiple users contributing knowledge to an environment. You know, maybe a collection of blog posts or items or something. And so you start off with no tags or maybe an administrator would create 10 tags or something to segment the data. And then people can go and either reuse those tags or create their own tags. And so the folk element of it is that you've got a very democratic and hippie-free, loving community of people who can go and tag content. And the first kinds of phoconomies that were around were for social media sites of various sorts. Now, they can be controlled or semi-controlled. You could, for instance, have a phoconomy which is restricted to loading users. That would be one way to control who can tag content. Or it can be open tagged. Or it can be only certain users can tag things in a certain way. So there's always difference of variations there. If you were to just Google phoconomy and definition, you would be able to find out most of that information, I think. Now, the thing that makes phoconomies really interesting, it's the element that they're using this technology, the internet, to allow people to connect and to tag things. And that they facilitate other tools. So one thing that a phoconomy would facilitate is a faceted search. If you've tagged a whole bunch of content with however you've generated those tags, whether they're good tags or bad tags, you can actually use them in a faceted search mode. So that's one thing they do. And then, of course, there's all kinds of fun widgets where you can do things like do tag cloud visualisation. So I'll just see if I can open another tag, another browser tab. And I'm hoping that I can get to it because the zoom meeting seems to have hidden some of my browser tabs. I'll try and get there. Let's see. The people who haven't seen this sort of thing, probably most of you have, this is a visualisation of the popularity of tags in a particular environment. And so the word people is very big because the tag people has been used lots of times. So the word you can see inside the p of people or inside the o of people, the word path has been used fewer times. So it's smaller. Now, these don't necessarily, these terms don't have to have come from a phoxonomy, but this is a typical application of a phoxonomy. You've got a website there, people are tagging content, and then for fun you can see what's the most popular tag, and you can do it in a way that I've done here, or something's done here, which is to visualise it with the size proportional to the use. Okay. So we often, or I've often, deals with questions about the relation between phoxonomies and vocabularies and so on. And it's really mostly around that notion of what level of control you have, and whether the list is an open list or a closed list. You could have, for instance, a controlled vocabulary that is open, and that you can add new terms to it, but the mechanism to which you add those terms is quite restricted or controlled or organised in some way. Now I'll put tag lists down there because the word tag lists I've used 10 times myself, it comes up, essentially seen about, seen the phoxonomy definitions. Okay. Now, before I get onto ontologies, I'm just going to show a couple of tabs again if I can physically get to it in my browser, but it's showing some instances of what I've just talked about. Okay. So here's the Wikipedia definition of phoxonomy. I don't expect you to read it now, but if you Wikipedia it's a good definition that explains what's going on there, and it's got all the bits that I've mentioned, social tagging, collaborative, etc. Now, some examples of phoxonomies in use are things like these, well, social bookmarking sites, delicious flicker, all of those kinds of websites that want to aggregate a whole bunch of content and then make that content available through tags so that people can find all the photos about koalas or something like that. Now, let's see. Now, I just wanted to show, in addition to those sort of vanilla phoxonomies, there are content management systems out there, and the one I personally use is Drupal, but there's lots of them, that allow tagging, and depending on how you set them up, they can allow phoxonomy-style tagging or more controlled vocabulary-style tagging. So Drupal has a concept of a thing called a taxonomy, and you can set the taxonomy up to allow any users to add terms to it or only to allow administrators to add terms to it, and that gives you then the option of essentially implementing a phoxonomy or some kind of more controlled list. Now, you could, for instance, call that list of vocabulary. It could be a controlled vocabulary whereby only a few designated people can go and implement that thing. So you could, for instance, sorry, add terms to that thing. You could, for instance, implement the climate and forecast conventions as tags within Drupal and have the climate and forecast consortia administer that. That would be a technical implementation then of that controlled list. So that's common practice for content management systems. Okay, now, again, sorry about the stiddling, but I'm really struggling to see my browser tags. Just move this down a little bit. Okay. All right, so I'm going to go into the difference between vocabularies and ontologies, and then from there, I will mention this stuff that Simon was going to mention, at least for a minute or two. I've probably learned out my time all close to it. Kim, how am I going for time? Am I way over? Sorry, I just had to unmute. No, you're not way over, and because we're missing Simon's, it doesn't matter. So that's fine. Okay, all right. Well, I'll finish as I intended, and then I think we'll be okay. All right. So one source of confusion, when people hear about vocabularies and then they hear about these semantic web style vocabularies and so on, they then enter the encounter ontologies. And so then some discussion about what's a vocabularies and what's an ontology is needed. Now, I've got a kind of set piece definition of an ontology there. So ontologies are really conceptual models of information or knowledge of a domain. So you would say this ontology represents the real world concept linking to do with fish species or to do with the history of data manipulation or any domain. The ontology is to set the classes and the relations of the things in that space. Now, ontologies, I've underlined the word working there because ontologies in the semantic web land can be used to validate instances of information. So you could say, does this RDF data set that I've made, is it conformed with some particular ontology in some particular domain? So that we can do that. Now, ontologies don't have to or don't have control lists in them. So you may say something like, in my ontology, this ontology is about the creation of data sets and every data set has to be created by a person. So that's what ontology tells you. And then a vocabulary will tell you something like, well, these are the data sets that have been created or these are the people that create data sets. So the ontology is telling you the relation between those things and their classes and then the vocabulary is giving you the individuals. Now, I'll mention the, so in RDF vocabulary land, a common crossover sort of between vocabulary and ontology or dual use of most two concepts is SCOS. So that's the Simple Knowledge Organization System. It itself is an ontology and what SCOS is telling you is the same. This is how you organize all the information to do with concept definitions and the things that you expect to see in a dictionary. So yeah, definitions, labels, et cetera, et cetera. So it's an ontology that's basically telling you how to make a dictionary. And then what you typically do is you go and make a dictionary of the terms that you want. So maybe you listed, you know, all of the concepts to do with phishing or something like that. So you've used the SCOS ontology to go and make a vocabulary for your particular purpose. Now SCOS has quite a lot of properties, some of which you don't see in traditional paper dictionaries. It has the preferred label of a concept. It will have alternate labels which could be acronyms for that concept or alternate spellings or whatever. It can have different language variants. And SCOS also has something which you don't see in dictionaries which is a hierarchy of terms. So you can say these terms are broader or narrower versions of other terms. And that's really what SCOS's big power is for. You can get definitions for terms and alternate labels and you can get the version of the words cat in English and in Polish or something like that. But you can also say, well, a cat is actually a type of feline and so is a lion, you know, that sort of thing. That's really what SCOS is about. Now, there is one final sort of layer to this. Oh, sorry. And I should mention that SCOS itself is a W3C standard and there's an awful lot of documentation about SCOS. And I'm sure that this would be happy to send out some links to some resources that we found useful. And obviously, Ann's are all about SCOS. Now, the only other extension to that that I'm going to mention is that you can actually use ontology other than SCOS to make vocabulary. So you could say something like, I would like to miss... make a vocabulary of people, of people that work at GSR Australia, say. And then what you could do is you could use an ontology that's about people to define what a person is and then your list of individual people would become your vocabulary. Now, that's not necessarily a SCOS vocabulary at all. In fact, it's not a SCOS vocabulary. It's using some other classification. SCOS is used for general purpose concepts and we typically then see it for definitions of words. But you can create vocabularies for anything you want or any kind of object. Now, I'll put a link in there, but again, I can send it out. I recently made a vocabulary that does two things. It defines a whole bunch of code lists that we need to use in a certain environment and it defines them as SCOS concepts. So there is a SCOS-based vocabulary there that says these things are, you know, lists of terms and this is what the definition is and this is their label, et cetera, et cetera. This is their hierarchy. And then in addition to that, there is a broader or a non-SCOS ontology which says, oh, by the way, that list of things are also types of rocks or they are types of methods or there's additional information there. So if people want to study the difference between a SCOS-based vocabulary and a more general or a non-SCOS-based vocabulary, they can look at that file there. Now, I appreciate that that's not very much fun for people looking at encoded files. So I'm going to come up with better images and documentation for that pretty soon. But I just wanted to highlight that that kind of thing does exist because we are mostly going to be dealing, I think, in the short term with SCOS-based vocabularies, but occasionally we'll come across in other vocabularies.