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

Re: notes at contepts vs notes at terms

From: Sue Ellen Wright <sellenwright@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 09:49:06 -0400
Message-ID: <e35499310510190649i1fc5259ekcf9ca68118018f07@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
Cc: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, Stella Dextre Clarke <sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk>, public-esw-thes@w3.org, Gail Hodge <Gailhodge@aol.com>
I hope it doesn't look like Stella and I gang up (we've actually never met
that I recall, but I'm looking forward to that some time somewhere!). In
terminology management we have a fundamental distinction: information about
terms, which is linguistic, etymological, register-related, standardization
related, etc., and information about concepts. Notes can go either place. In
TMF, this relation is established by virtue of the principle of inheritance
and we've avoided burgeoning different types of "note" in the MDR by
imposing this principle of inheritance on "note". In SKOS, I would be a big
supporter of note on term, even though it opens up the box to let out a need
for notes on other stuff as well. In Peircian linguistics, relations exist
at both the surface/term level and the deep-structure concept level, and
sometimes these relations interfere with each other in strange and wonderful
ways.
 Bye for now
SUe Ellen

 On 10/19/05, Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Alistair,
>
> > I think we could fit this into the model, but I'd like to make sure we
> do it only where appropriate and absolutely necessary. Hence I'd like for us
> to review a good set of requirements before making any design decisions. So
> if you could describe the scenarios you have encountered where notes are
> usefully associated with non-preferred terms, that would be very helpful.
>
> From one point of view ("maintenance", "future extensions" or
> whatever you might call it) the class approach has the advantage that
> you can always attach properties to terms, e.g. properties that might
> turn out to be really useful somewhere in the future (i.e. stuff we
> cannot anticipate now).
>
> Another reason is that Terms get a URI so that they can be referred
> to. In the WordNet TF, this is a motivation to assign URIs to
> WordSenses, instead of using blank nodes. You can then use WordSenses
> e.g. to annotate texts. Similar uses might be envisioned for SKOS terms.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark.
>
> --
> 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 Wednesday, 19 October 2005 13:49:17 GMT

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