Re: Modelling 'entry terms' in SKOS

> I always assumes that the set of altLabels for a concept would constitute
> the entry vocabulary (entry terms) for a concept.
Yes  -- we didn't mean to imply that there was no entry vocabulary.

We wanted to raise as a possible limitation what seem to be the omission of
the
explicit thesaurus Equivalence relation.

The alt labels do allow access points to the concept by any of the
alternates and thus do allow an entry vocabulary - which is certainly a key
point.
However there are some other possibilities that may be more difficult to
implement without explicit equivalence relationships.
- various subtypes of equivalence corresponding to
parts-of-speech relationships, US/UKalts, types of synonyms, antonyms (even)
- in some cases a term can be considered Equivalent to more than
one concept (perhaps with different degrees of confidence).

I guess these are more future application possibilities, might
be considered as less 'core' and we may be in danger of over-elaborating.
However if we go on to extend the current core thesaurus
relationships by specialisation then we might also want to distinguish
subtypes of equivalence. This might be easier if there was an explicit
equivalence relationship.

I'm not sure how important this is but the general question is are there
consequences in not representing Equivalence explicitly ?

Doug

Received on Friday, 27 February 2004 06:39:43 UTC