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

Re: Issue : unicity of prefLabel per language per concept scheme

From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 12:31:13 +0100
Message-ID: <4753E901.1060908@mondeca.com>
To: Stella Dextre Clarke <sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk>
Cc: 'SKOS' <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

Stella

Thanks for your quick answer and references, and to make again the point 
about your reservations concerning the extension of SKOS scope. Although 
I understand the rationale, seems to me that the current trend is 
towards having SKOS semantics and constraints layer as light as possible 
in order to extend its scope to any form of structured vocabulary used 
for indexing, classification, search and retrieval.
Additional constraints as the one we discuss here are indeed 
application-specific, and therefore should not necessarily be 
constrained by SKOS formal semantics, so that different types of 
specific vocabularies/applications should be able to use the same 
minimal format. It does not seem in contradiction with the fact that " 
... internal constraints/validations when encoding any one vocabulary 
may need to vary from one type of vocabulary to another".
All the question is to know if those different types of constraints 
should be specified by SKOS vocabulary and semantics, or specified by 
technical annexes such as "Using SKOS for a thesaurus, Using SKOS for a 
classification scheme, etc" ...  or let to implementers.

BTW I suppose your reservations hold in the similar way in the framework 
of ISO NP 25964 (keeping specifications for distinct vocabulary types 
distinct). Right?

Bernard

Stella Dextre Clarke a écrit :
> Bernard,
> Yes, that is the practice followed in classification schemes and some
> taxonomies, especially the monohierarchical ones. A classification
> scheme does not have a "preferred term", with the properties described
> in ISO 2788 and BS8723-2; for display purposes it has a caption that
> does not have to be unique, plus a notation that does have to be unique.
> In a taxonomy, the category label may be comparable with the caption of
> a classification scheme, and uniqueness may be conveyed by a notation or
> by an identifier. See BS 8723-3 for a more complete discussion.
> Because of these subtle differences in the functions of the various
> elements, I've always had reservations about using SKOS for several
> different types of vocabulary. There are certainly advantages in using
> one format to carry any type of vocabulary, but I feel the internal
> constraints/validations when encoding any one vocabulary may need to
> vary from one type of vocabulary to another.
> 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
> *****************************************************
>
>
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org 
>> [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Vatant
>> Sent: 03 December 2007 09:54
>> To: SKOS
>> Subject: Issue : unicity of prefLabel per language per concept scheme
>>
>>
>>
>> I've several current SKOS use cases making me wondering about this 
>> recommendation in 
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-guide-20051102/#secmulti
>>
>> "It is recommended that no two concepts in the same concept scheme be 
>> given the same preferred lexical label in any given language."
>>
>> This recommendation follows the thesaurus standard practice, 
>> but other 
>> types of structured vocabularies which seem to be in the 
>> scope of SKOS 
>> don't follow this practice. I've in mind controlled 
>> vocabularies in law, 
>> where the same term is used in different contexts to label different 
>> concepts, the disambiguation being by context. The context itself is 
>> usually formally represented by a path to the concept in the 
>> broader-narrower tree, e.g., the following are four distinct concepts 
>> all using the term "Children custody" in different contexts, 
>> but in the 
>> same Concept Scheme "Divorce".
>>
>> Contentious divorce: Temporary arrangements: Children custody 
>> Contentious divorce: Definitive arrangements: Children 
>> custody Non-contentious divorce: Temporary arrangements: 
>> Children custody Non-contentious divorce: Definitive 
>> arrangements: Children custody
>>
>> In such cases, encapsulating the context in the prefLabel string is 
>> rapidly cumbersome in interfaces, the context chain can become 
>> arbitrarily long in such matters.
>>
>> How would one SKOS-ify such a vocabulary? If "Children 
>> custody" is used 
>> as prefLabel, the recommendation of unicity is obviously 
>> broken, if not, 
>> what should be the recommended value of prefLabel?
>>
>> Bernard
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> *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/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>
>
>   

-- 

*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 Monday, 3 December 2007 11:31:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:58 GMT