- From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 14:53:59 +0100
- To: "Mark van Assem" <mark@cs.vu.nl>
- Cc: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Hi Mark,
> 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.
The thing is, I don't think that a class of 'non-preferred terms' in the thesaurus sense would correspond to the class of wordnet WordSenses. The wordnet metamodel (is [1] the latest version?) has three main classes: 'Word' 'WordSense' and 'Synset'. I think the class wn:Word (which is a super-class of wn:Collocation) is closest to the notion of a 'non-preferred term', but even that I don't think matches, because a non-preferred term is always embedded in a thesaurus, and hence represents a relationship between several entities, whereas a Word is kind of an entity in its own right ...
See how fuzzy things get when we try to work out what a 'term' is?
There are other alternatives to defining a class of non-preferred terms, such as e.g.
eg:foo a skos:Concept;
skos:prefLabel 'Foo';
skos:altLabel 'Bar';
skos:note [
rdf:value 'Blah blah.';
skos:onLabel 'Foo';
];
.
Cheers for now,
Al.
[1] http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark/wn/17-10-05/wn.rdfs
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2005 13:54:04 UTC