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

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

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 17:10:53 +0200
Message-ID: <467E897D.1030507@few.vu.nl>
To: "Sini, Margherita (KCEW)" <Margherita.Sini@fao.org>
CC: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, public-esw-thes@w3.org

Hi Margherita,

Thank you very much for your feedback! this is very much appreciated, 
and useful.
> Dear Antoine and Alistar,
>
> Thank you for this work which we think is very useful! Capturing
> relationships between labels is what we are try to represent since some time.
>
> Regarding the possible modelling approaches you mention in [4] here my
> comments:
>
> - I like First solution: Term-as-class. This will allow to create also any
> other type of properties between terms. It also allow to attache terms to the
> corresponding concept.
>
> - Second solution: I personally do not like this too much. I think this will
> duplicate the info (labels are written twice)
>
> - Third solution: keeping standard SKOS and Term-as-class solutions
> co-existing... not yet clear
>   
Basically this third solution [3]  would allow for people to opt for the 
first solution (term-as-class) or the sandard (label as literal) one. In 
whatever case, the proposal says how to convert from term-as-class 
representation to standard, and vice versa, so as to be compatible with 
the tools that could be produced following either approach.

Cheers,

Antoine

[3] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLabels/ProposalThree
[4] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLabels

>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Antoine Isaac
> Sent: 15 June 2007 16:11
> To: Miles, AJ (Alistair)
> Cc: SWD WG; public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [SKOS] ISSUE-26: "Minimal Label Relation" Proposal
>
>
>
> Hi Alistair,
>
>   
>>  
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> 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"
>>
>>   
>>     
> I had indeed understood this. But it was not very explicit from the 
> examples alone, and I wanted to have confirmation of what would happen 
> in the antonymy case.
>
>   
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Here is an alternative proposal for resolution of ISSUE-26
>>>>       
>>>>
>>>> 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 [1], not Guus' 
>> "Simple Extension" proposal [3].
>>     
>>> 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 :)
>>     
>
> Argh. So if I would try to clarify the information found at the top of 
> [0] (yes, zero ;-) then your "minmal label relation" [4] competes with 
> your previous "Label Annotation" [2] and Guus' "Label Relation" [1]. And 
> then the best of the three should be compared to the "Simple extension" 
> by Guus [4] which proposes a less systematic approach to the 
> Term-as-class option
>
> Notice that all the proposals relying on sort of reification of the 
> label link face the important problem raised by Jon in [5]: asserting 
> links between labels should somehow be contextualized, and I'm not sure 
> you could do with so little semantics for your seeLabelRelation 
> property. Indeed, since attaching a LabelRelation to a concept is not 
> optimal as I've tried to show, I would propose to contextualize it by 
> attaching it to the ConceptScheme instance itself...
>
> Notice also that this contextualization issue may also occur for the 
> term-as-class part of Guus' "Simple Extension" [3]. Perhaps a better way 
> is just to ignore this problem for now, and to postpone it till we solve 
> the related SemanticRelationshipContainment issue [6]. I really don't 
> like how all these issues are related...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
> [0] 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLabels/
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Feb/0195.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Mar/0092.html
> [3] 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLabels/Prop
> osalThree
> [4] 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLabels/Prop
> osalFour
> [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Feb/0187.html
> [6] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/36
>
>
>   
Received on Sunday, 24 June 2007 15:27:10 GMT

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