W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > November 2005

Re: notes at contepts vs notes at terms

From: Sue Ellen Wright <sellenwright@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 10:10:29 -0500
Message-ID: <e35499310511010710i7d6e6b31nd2a358142ca41d07@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
Cc: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
Alas, some wise person once said that one should be careful what you wish
for. I mentioned a couple instances of very clear term notes, leaving out
the full list because these are mostly elements of information that are
relevant for terminologies but not always significant for thesauri. But
since you asked, here's the list of term-related information -- most of
which we distinguish with a full variety of different data elements in
terminology work, but all of which under some circumstances might be
relevant as information in a "term note". The numbers are from the old
classification system we used in ISO 12620:1999. Here goes:
 A.2 term-related information
A.2.1 term type
DESCRIPTION: An attribute assigned to a term.
NOTE: Term types can include:
A.2.1.1 main entry term
A.2.1.2 synonym
A.2.1.3 quasi-synonym
A.2.1.4 international scientific term
A.2.1.5 common name
A.2.1.6 internationalism
A.2.1.7 full form
A.2.1.8 abbreviated form of term
NOTE 2: Types of abbreviated form can include:
A.2.1.8.1 abbreviation
A.2.1.8.2 short form of term
ADMITTED NAME: short form
DESCRIPTION: A variant of a multiword term that includes fewer words than
the full form of the term.
A.2.1.8.3 initialism
A.2.1.8.4 acronym
A.2.1.8.5 clipped term
A.2.1.9 variant
A.2.1.10 transliterated form
A.2.1.11 transcribed form
A.2.1.12 romanized form
A.2.1.13 symbol
A.2.1.14 formula
A.2.1.15 equation
A.2.1.16 logical expression
A.2.1.17 materials management categories
A.2.1.17.1 sku
A.2.1.17.2 part number
A.2.1.18 phraseological unit
A.2.1.18.1 collocation
A.2.1.18.2 set phrase
A.2.1.19 standard text
A.2.2 grammar
A.2.2.1 part of speech
ERMISSIBLE INSTANCES: Examples of parts of speech commonly documented in
terminology databases can include:
a) noun
b) verb
c) adjective
A.2.2.2 grammatical gender
a) masculine
b) feminine
c) neuter
d) other
A.2.2.3 grammatical number
a) singular
b) plural
c) dual
d) mass noun
e) other
A.2.2.4 animacy
a) animate
b) inanimate
c) other
A.2.2.5 noun class
a) proper noun
b) common noun
A.2.2.6 adjective class
a) proper adjective
b) common adjective
A.2.3 usage
A.2.3.1 usage note
A.2.3.2 geographical usage
A.2.3.3 register
a) neutral register
b) technical register
c) in house register
d) bench level register
e) slang register
f) vulgar register
A.2.3.4 frequency
a) commonly used
b) infrequently used
c) rarely used
A.2.3.5 temporal qualifier
a) archaic term
b) outdated term
c) obsolete term
A.2.3.6 time restriction
A.2.3.7 proprietary restriction
a) trademark
b) trade name
A.2.4 term formation
A.2.4.1 term provenance
a) transdisciplinary borrowing
b) translingual borrowing
c) loan translation
d) neologism
A.2.4.2 etymology
A.2.5 pronunciation
A.2.6 syllabification
A.2.7 hyphenation
A.2.8 morphology
A.2.8.1 morphological element
A.2.8.2 term element
A.2.9 term status
Data categories associated with term status include:
normative authorization
administrative status
process status
language-planning qualifier
A.2.9.1 normative authorization
a) standardized term
b) preferred term
c) admitted term
d) deprecated term
e) superseded term
f) legal term
g) regulated term
A.2.9.2 language-planning qualifier
a) recommended term
b) nonstandardized term
c) proposed term
d) new term
A.2.9.3 administrative status
A.2.9.4 process status
a) unprocessed
b) provisionally processed
c) finalized
A.2.10 degree of synonymy
(Equivalence relations and synonymy could be construed as concept related
rather than term related.)
 Of course this is much too much stuff to burden SKOS with and I would never
suggest it. But since some items might be interesting within a thesaurus
environment, the notion of a term note is not a bad idea if it doesn't
overburden the system.
 Sue Ellen

 On 11/1/05, Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Alistair,
>
> I'm leaving the "use cases" that I wrote about for later, in this post
> I to summarize what I think Sue Ellen Wright, Bernard Vatant, Phil
> Carlisle and Stella Dextre Clark have been saying (please correct me
> if I'm wrong!) [1,2,3,4,5]. I'm hoping Sue and Stella can find time to
> provide some more examples.
>
> About the word "term": I agree that it is overloaded. Should I call
> "the thing in the range of the skos:prefLabel and skos:altLabel
> properties" a Label or a Token?
>
> If a class e.g. Label is introduced instead of the literal currently
> defined as the range of skos:prefLabel and skos:altLabel, additional
> information can be attached to Labels. The categories of information
> that can be attached to instances of a class Label or Token are
> (summarizing other people's posts):
>
> - scope notes for terms, also referring to other terms to use [4]
> - lexical information about the term [2,5]
> - scope of usage of the lexical term [5]
> - etymological, register-related, standardization
> related [2] (I hope Sue can find time to clarify this further)
>
> (what follows is not summarizing [1-5])
>
> Furthermore, some examples from MeSH [6]:
>
> - TermUI (local identifier)
> - date created
> - source thesaurus (MeSH groups different thesauri into one)
> - abbreviation
>
> which mostly fall under a category "editorial information". I also
> remember someone posting that some thesauri attach different
> definitions to different terms.
>
> A class Label would make it possible to extend the SKOS schema for
> categories of information (attached to Label) we can't foresee right now.
>
> You provide an alternative way to attach notes to labels [7]:
>
> ex:conceptA a skos:Concept;
> skos:prefLabel 'Animals';
> skos:altLabel 'Fauna';
> skos:editorialNote [
> skos:onLbl 'Fauna';
> rdf:value 'Check with Mr.X. whether to keep "Fauna".';
> ];
>
> I think this is a solution, but in principle this method could be used
> everywhere you normally use a class to group information about an
> entity. I think the more usual way to do this in RDF or OWL is
> introduce a class. Also, this is harder to maintain (changing
> skos:altLabel 'Fauna' without changing skos:onLbl 'Fauna' leads to
> errors).
>
> Of course we can choose not to support this kind of information
> attached to terms, but then we should say so explicitly.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark.
>
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Oct/0119
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Oct/0109.html
> [3]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Oct/0101.html
> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Aug/0019
> [5]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Aug/0018
> [6] http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/xml2006sample.txt
> [7]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Aug/0017.html
>
>
> --
> Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
> mark@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
>
>
>


--
Sue Ellen Wright
Institute for Applied Linguistics
Kent State University
Kent OH 44242 USA
sellenwright@gmail.com
swright@kent.edu
sewright@neo.rr.com
Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:10:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:54 GMT