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

[SKOS] ISSUE-33 "SimpleExtension" proposal (was RE: [SKOS] "Lexicalization" or "term"?)

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:55:16 +0100
Message-ID: <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D02EC07EA@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,

I just took a look at the latest revision of the "SimpleExtension" proposal [1] for ISSUE-33. Interesting :)

Under this proposal, is there a bijection [2] between the extension of skos:Label and the set of RDF plain literals?

In other words, is there only one skos:Label for every plain literal, and vice versa?

Or, under this proposal, is there only a surjection [3] between the extension of skos:Label and the set of RDF plain literals

In other words, is there only one plain literal for every skos:Label, but one or more skos:Label for every plain literal?

This is absolutely crucial to exploring the consequences of the proposal. It is crucial because it bears on the conditions under which it makes practical and logical sense to assert the identity of two individuals of type skos:Label. This is the fundamental question that all proposals following the "terms-as-classes" pattern must address.

Cheers,

Al.

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijection>
[3] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surjective_function>



This proposal makes me happy, not because I support it necessarily, but because , because there is enough information there to understand the intended semantics There are two fundamental questions this propsal


It seems to me that [1] intendes the skos:Label class is equivalent to the class of RDF

[1] <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLabels/ProposalThree?action=recall&rev=14>

--
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  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-swd-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Antoine Isaac
> Sent: 08 June 2007 12:47
> To: Thomas Baker
> Cc: Daniel Rubin; SWD WG
> Subject: Re: [SKOS] "Lexicalization" or "term"?
> 
> 
> Hi Tom,
> > On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 10:36:23AM +0200, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> >   
> >> To add to this mutual clarification process: as said, 
> nothing like a 
> >> "term" appears now in current SKOS, it only popped up in the 
> >> discussion because of loosely wording used in the proposals for 
> >> solving the RelationshipBetweenLabels issue. [and of 
> course I share a 
> >> great deal of responsability for that :-(] Hence my will to 
> >> replace"term"by "Lexicalization" (or by anything more 
> neutral than "term") in Guus'
> >> proposal
> >> 
> (http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLa
> >> bels/ProposalThree)
> >>     
> >
> > One problem is that "lexicalization" is not defined in the average 
> > desk dictionary.
> How about http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/lexicalization ? Is 
> it too unclear, or too process-oriented?
> >  If I were to guess at it's
> > meaning, out of this context, I'd have said "the process of 
> > lexicalizing", and I see that some linguists use lexicalization to 
> > refer to the process of making a word for a concept, but these 
> > meanings are misleading for what we want to say here.
> >
> > Given a choice between "lexicalization" and "term", I'd 
> still go for 
> > "term" but agree we should try to find something more neutral.
> >   
> Clearly "term" should be avoided. "LexicalToken"? 
> "LabelResource"? I am ready to accept anything ;-)
> 
> Antoine
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 15 June 2007 13:56:33 GMT

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