W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > May 2006

Re: Change proposal

From: Mark van Assem <mark@few.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 17:21:47 +0300
Message-ID: <447DA67B.90308@few.vu.nl>
To: Antoine Isaac <Antoine.Isaac@KB.nl>
CC: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>, Alistair Miles <a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk>, public-esw-thes@w3.org

Hi Antoine,

> Actually what could happen with the term-as-class solution is the
> creation of several instances of Terms referring actually to the same

I am not sure I understand. Are you saying that it is a problem that a 
separate URI would be assigned to the same term in the terms-as-class 
solution, while this would not happen in the current solution because 
they are just labels?

Then this is just a problem that either (a) there is an 'error' in the 
thesaurus anyway because the term is repeated (b) the conversion just is 
a little bit harder because we'd have to detect if the term already 
exists, or is really different.

I don't see this as a reason not to go for the term-as-classes solution, 
as any existing RDF Schema can be used wrongly.

> are linked to a same lexical form, then they are equivalent. The problem
> is that if we do that for a datatypeProperty (which hasLexicalform would
> be) then we end in OWL Full. Which would perhaps make this solution less
> interesting...

Yep, very right. But there are some other 'errors' or constraints that 
the SKOS schema itself does not prevent/enforce, e.g. 'No two concepts 
in the same concept scheme may have the same value for skos:prefLabel in 
a given language.' We could include just one more constraint or 
'warning' rule.


Lastly, like I said earlier, I think it is more important to flag the 
issue in the Change Proposal/Issue list than to try to solve it now. 
(Although I enjoy discussing it very much!)

Cheers,
Mark.


-- 
  Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
        markREMOVE@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
Received on Wednesday, 31 May 2006 14:21:59 GMT

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