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

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

From: Stella Dextre Clarke <sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:04:10 -0000
To: "'Bernard Vatant'" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Cc: "'SKOS'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001101c835ad$01aeb3e0$0300000a@DELL>

Bernard,
Yes, I think that's a good analysis of the situation and the practical
ways of enabling widespread use of a single format, while encouraging
tight control within any one vocabulary. I like your idea of providing
advice on what to do when using SKOS for the distinct vocabulary types.
Of course, it depends on obtaining a reasonable consensus as to *which*
are the distinct vocabulary types - which we tried to make a start on
defining in BS8723-3, and hopefully will continue to develop in the
course of ISO NP 25964.
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: Bernard Vatant [mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com] 
> Sent: 03 December 2007 11:31
> To: Stella Dextre Clarke
> Cc: 'SKOS'
> Subject: Re: Issue : unicity of prefLabel per language per 
> concept scheme
> 
> 
> 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 13:04:24 GMT

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