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

RE: notes at contepts vs notes at terms

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 18:47:57 +0100
Message-ID: <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D0ACE1E@exchange11.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, "Mark van Assem \(E-mail\)" <mark@cs.vu.nl>

Hi Mark,

> One use of WordNet is if you want to annotate a text with a specific 
> sense of "bank" occuring in a text. You need a WordSense for 
> that, not 
> Word or Synset. For another application, e.g. counting the # 
> occurences of a specific Word, you would like to annotate using Words.
>
> Analogous for SKOS thesauri:
> 
> If you would like to annotate a text with a specific non-preferred 
> term, you need a URI. Annotating using the Concept is something 
> different, analogous to the different meanings of annotating using a 
> Synset, WordSense or Word.

I can understand why you would want to 'annotate' a document with a WordSense.  But why would you want to 'annotate' a document with a non-preferred term from a thesaurus?  What would such an 'annotation' mean?

> Another bonus of having URIs for Terms is that it becomes possible to 
> map terms in different languages to each other, instead of just 
> Concepts. This would enable mapping between a non-pref term in one 
> language to a pref term in another.
	
Why do you want to 'map' non-preferred terms from different languages?  What would be the meaning of such a 'mapping'?

Cheers,

Al.

[1] http://www.limber.rl.ac.uk/External/SW_conf_thes_paper.htm
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2003Oct/0012.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2003Nov/0008.html
[4] http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v01/i08/Doerr/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark van Assem [mailto:mark@cs.vu.nl]
> Sent: 19 October 2005 17:04
> To: Miles, AJ (Alistair)
> Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Subject: Re: notes at contepts vs notes at terms
> 
> 
> Hi Alistair,
> 
> > 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 ... 
> 
> I don't think I understand your response to my point. I will try to 
> make myself a bit clearer, maybe that helps you to point out what I'm 
> missing :-)
> 
> I refer to WN because I want to make an analogy between the different 
> ways WN can be used to annotate and the different ways a SKOS 
> thesaurus can be used provided there are URIs for terms.
> 
> One use of WordNet is if you want to annotate a text with a specific 
> sense of "bank" occuring in a text. You need a WordSense for 
> that, not 
> Word or Synset. For another application, e.g. counting the # 
> occurences of a specific Word, you would like to annotate using Words.
> 
> Analogous for SKOS thesauri:
> 
> If you would like to annotate a text with a specific non-preferred 
> term, you need a URI. Annotating using the Concept is something 
> different, analogous to the different meanings of annotating using a 
> Synset, WordSense or Word.
> 
> BTW there is a need for a class of preferred terms also, is there a 
> specific reason you focus on the non-preferred in this mail?
> 
> Yep, [1] is the most recent.
> 
> Another bonus of having URIs for Terms is that it becomes possible to 
> map terms in different languages to each other, instead of just 
> Concepts. This would enable mapping between a non-pref term in one 
> language to a pref term in another.
> 
> > There are other alternatives to defining a class of 
> non-preferred terms, such as e.g.
> 
> If there are no compelling reasons to avoid a class Term I would 
> prefer a class solution.
> 
> Cheers,
> Mark.
> 
> 
> > [1] http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark/wn/17-10-05/wn.rdfs
> 
> -- 
>   Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
>         mark@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
> 
Received on Monday, 24 October 2005 17:48:19 GMT

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