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

RE: SKOS properties

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 09:45:35 +0100
Message-ID: <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D02CAB1E8@exchange11.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

Hi all,

I just wanted to add that this discussion is relevant to issue 26 "RelationshipsBetweenLabels" <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/26> which is currently unresolved. I hope to find some time soon to revisit this issue.

Cheers,

Alistair.

--
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 Sue Ellen Wright
> Sent: 30 April 2007 13:55
> To: Sean Bechhofer
> Cc: Bernard Vatant; Stella Dextre Clarke; Quentin Reul; SWD 
> Working Group; public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Subject: Re: SKOS properties
> 
> Hi, All,
> Of course, this is all true. Whatever "solution" is reached 
> has to provide some degree of reliability for a certain level 
> of automatic processing, while at the same time enabling 
> users to point at least human users to information on the 
> indeterminacy inherent in so-called antonymic relations. 
> Interoperability is always going to be relative, I think, 
> because of the nature of the relation. Talking this all 
> through is good, however, because it may lead to a mechanism 
> that will at least avoid the most egregious confusions. 
> Bye for now
> Sue Ellen
> 
>  
> On 4/30/07, Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: 
> 
> 
> 	On 27 Apr 2007, at 12:03, Bernard Vatant wrote:
> 	
> 	>
> 	> Hi Stella
> 	>
> 	> Stella Dextre Clarke a écrit : 
> 	>> Sue Ellen,
> 	>> Yes, I can see that treating antonyms as synonyms 
> would not suit a
> 	>> terminology application at all. And even for thesaurus
> 	>> applications, it only works for *some* antonyms in *some* 
> 	>> contexts. (For example the black/white and war/peace 
> cases that
> 	>> have been mentioned look most  unlikely candidates.)
> 	> I chose "black" and "white" for sake of simplicity, 
> knowing they 
> 	> are unlikely to appear as concepts in a thesaurus. 
> But we seem to
> 	> all agree that antonyms deserve a special treat. And 
> that a pair of
> 	> antonyms should be represented in SKOS as two 
> different instances 
> 	> of skos:Concept, right?
> 	>> For a thesaurus manager, however, it is nice to be 
> able to apply
> 	>> this treatment in selected cases. Can/should  SKOS 
> try to meet all
> 	>> needs of all user groups? 
> 	> Maybe SKOS (core at least) should not, but RDF can, 
> as Jakob wrote
> 	> this need could be dealt with a specific subproperty 
> of skos:related
> 	>
> 	> skos:antonym      rdfs:subPropertyOf      skos:related 
> 	>
> 	> If it's not defined in SKOS namespace, nothing 
> prevents to declare
> 	> it in a specific extension defined by those who have this need
> 	>
> 	> my-skos-extension:antonym      rdfs:subPropertyOf     
>  skos:related 
> 	>
> 	> I've been playing with medical terminologies lately, 
> and there is
> 	> this notion of "excludes" in ICD10. See http://www.icd10.ch/
> 	> This is also a form a antagonist relationship, which could be 
> 	> defined as subproperty of skos:related, maybe specific to ICD,
> 	> maybe reusable by other vocabularies.
> 	>
> 	> There is no difficulty to specify subproperties of 
> skos:related in
> 	> RDF. The real question is to know if those 
> specifications are of 
> 	> enough general use to be integrated in SKOS core, or 
> defined in
> 	> SKOS extensions, or left to the community of users to 
> specify in
> 	> their own namespace. For antonyms and exclusions, I'm leaning
> 	> towards the second solution.
> 	
> 	Defining the common relationships is one half of the task -- the
> 	other is ensuring that the interpretation of those 
> relationships is
> 	consistent (e.g. broader is a transitive relation). Allowing 
> 	community users to define their own extensions places 
> an onus on them
> 	to enforce consistent, adding it to the core allows the 
> imposition of
> 	more "global" constraints, but as Guus points out, 
> potentially raises 
> 	the bar to adoption/implementation.
> 	
> 	       Sean
> 	
> 	--
> 	Sean Bechhofer
> 	School of Computer Science
> 	University of Manchester
> 	sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk 
> 	http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer
> 	
> 	
> 	
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Sue Ellen Wright
> Institute for Applied Linguistics
> Kent State University
> Kent OH 44242 USA
> sellenwright@gmail.com
> swright@kent.edu
> sewright@neo.rr.com 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2007 08:57:04 GMT

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