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

RE: [SKOS] ISSUE-26: "Minimal Label Relation" Proposal

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:25:13 +0100
Message-ID: <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D02EC07E5@exchange11.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: "SWD WG" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

Hi Antoine,

> Hi Alistair
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Here is an alternative proposal for resolution of ISSUE-26 
> (RelationshipsBetweenLabels):
> >
> > 
> <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLab
> > els/ProposalFour?action=recall&rev=4>
> >
> > I've called this proposal "Minimal Label Relation" because 
> it is very similar to Guus' "LabelRelation" proposal, but 
> with a bit less ontological commitment.
> >   
> Why?

Note I am referring to Guus' "LabelRelation" proposal [3], not Guus' "Simple Extension" proposal [1]. 

> By the way this 'counting' does not take into account the 
> weight of the seeLabelRelation. To me, you could remove it, 
> this would have the benefit of not anchoring your link to one 
> concept exclusively. This anchoring can have some advantages, 
> but it also seems very restrictive. 
> If you were to have 2 labels linked that belong to different 
> concepts (e.g. if your label relationship is 'antonym') would 
> you attach the labelRelation instance to both concepts?

The proposal has deliberately weak semantics for skos:seeLabelRelation. There is no requirement to use it all. There are no constraints its cardinality in either direction. Also (from [4]):

"...there does not necessarily have to be any correspondance between the lexical labels of a resource, and the labels involved in a label relation, to which the resource is related via the skos:seeLabelRelation property"

> Antoher question, purely formal: is this new proposal of 
> yours deprecating the more general proposal you launched in [2]?

I prefer the "Minimal Label Relation" proposal [4] to the "LabelAnnotation" proposal [2].

So many proposal names :)

Cheers,

Al.

[3] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Feb/0195.html>
[4] <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLabels/ProposalFour?action=recall&rev=4>

> 
> Antoher question, purely formal: is this new proposal of 
> yours deprecating the more general proposal you launched in [2]?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Antoine
> 
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBet
> weenLabels/ProposalThree
> [2] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Mar/0092.html
> 
> > ACTION: Alistair to provide details of alternative proposal 
> [recorded 
> > in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/12-swd-minutes.html#action10]
> >
> > --done
> >
> > Cheers,
> > --
> > Alistair Miles
> > Research Associate
> > Science and Technology Facilities Council Rutherford Appleton 
> > Laboratory Harwell Science and Innovation Campus Didcot Oxfordshire 
> > OX11 0QX United Kingdom
> > Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
> > Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
> > Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
> >
> >
> >   
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 15 June 2007 13:25:42 GMT

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