W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > April 2007

Re: SKOS properties

From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:03:44 +0200
Message-ID: <4631D890.3040302@mondeca.com>
To: Stella Dextre Clarke <sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk>
Cc: 'Sue Ellen Wright' <sellenwright@gmail.com>, 'Quentin Reul' <qreul@csd.abdn.ac.uk>, 'SWD Working Group' <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, public-esw-thes@w3.org

Hi Stella

Stella Dextre Clarke a écrit :
> Sue Ellen,
> Yes, I can see that treating antonyms as synonyms would not suit a 
> terminology application at all. And even for thesaurus applications, 
> it only works for *some* antonyms in *some* contexts. (For example the 
> black/white and war/peace cases that have been mentioned look most  
> unlikely candidates.)
I chose "black" and "white" for sake of simplicity, knowing they are 
unlikely to appear as concepts in a thesaurus. But we seem to all agree 
that antonyms deserve a special treat. And that a pair of antonyms 
should be represented in SKOS as two different instances of 
skos:Concept, right?
> For a thesaurus manager, however, it is nice to be able to apply this 
> treatment in selected cases. Can/should  SKOS try to meet all needs of 
> all user groups?
Maybe SKOS (core at least) should not, but RDF can, as Jakob wrote this 
need could be dealt with a specific subproperty of skos:related

skos:antonym      rdfs:subPropertyOf      skos:related

If it's not defined in SKOS namespace, nothing prevents to declare it in 
a specific extension defined by those who have this need

my-skos-extension:antonym      rdfs:subPropertyOf      skos:related

I've been playing with medical terminologies lately, and there is this 
notion of "excludes" in ICD10. See http://www.icd10.ch/
This is also a form a antagonist relationship, which could be defined as 
subproperty of skos:related, maybe specific to ICD, maybe reusable by 
other vocabularies.

There is no difficulty to specify subproperties of skos:related in RDF. 
The real question is to know if those specifications are of enough 
general use to be integrated in SKOS core, or defined in SKOS 
extensions, or left to the community of users to specify in their own 
namespace. For antonyms and exclusions, I'm leaning towards the second 
solution.

Cheers

Bernard

> cheers
> Stella
>
> *****************************************************
> Stella Dextre Clarke
> Information Consultant
> Luke House, West Hendred, Wantage, Oxon, OX12 8RR, UK
> Tel: 01235-833-298
> Fax: 01235-863-298
> SDClarke@LukeHouse.demon.co.uk
> *****************************************************
>

*Bernard Vatant
*Knowledge Engineering
----------------------------------------------------
*Mondeca**
*3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
Web:    www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com>
----------------------------------------------------
Tel:       +33 (0) 871 488 459
Mail:     bernard.vatant@mondeca.com <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Blog:    Leçons de Choses <http://mondeca.wordpress.com/>
Received on Friday, 27 April 2007 11:03:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:55 GMT