W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > November 2009

Re: [Dbpedia-discussion] Using DBpedia resources as skos:Concepts?

From: Simon Spero <ses@unc.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 20:40:36 -0500
Message-ID: <1af06bde0911051740p51489a8ha786e5f9968d6b25@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leonard Will <L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Alexandre Passant <alexandre.passant@deri.org>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net, SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Leonard Will <L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk>wrote:

>
>  Every concept that has-associated-class K is a generic-concept.
>> Every concept that has-associated-individual I is a
>> named-individual-concept.
>>
>
> Presumably by "associated class" you mean two or more individuals, not
> necessarily individually identified, each of which fits within the scope of
> the concept.

[...]

 If A has-broader-term-instantive B and  A has-associated-individual X and B
> has-associated-class Y
> then X types Y.
>

I'm not sure whether you are using "types" with a formal meaning here, but I
> take it that you mean that X is a member of the class Y. (Sounds as though
> this should be Y types X, but I don't know the convention.)


 Sorry - I was using Attempto Controllled English and was being a bit
lazy.   By associated class I meant that generic concepts could have an
associated owl:Class, and by "types" I meant rdf:type.  The key point is
that an individual or class may be related to a KOS Concept, and that
relationships between these individuals and classes can be derived from KOS
relationships iff BTG/BTI relationships can be distinguished.

I left out BTP because it didn't directly illustrate this point;   I also
accidentally left out the important rule of aboutness:

If a document is-about a Concept A and A has-broader-term B then the
document is-about B.

It's only when you have a partitive relationship that is not the end
> relationship of the branch that non-transitivity occurs.
>
> Since in standard thesaurus structures partitive relationships are
> restricted to a few special cases such as places and organisational
> structures, this is not usually a problem in practice.
>

Aboutness can even cross partitive lines (BTP o BTG). The common thread
between  the special cases of BTP is that they are necessarily true;
Milstead (2001, p.60) ) supported extending the scope to other partitive
relationships; "[The part-whole relationship] only has to meet the test of
always being true, just as with the other hierarchical relationships.”

(did you spot the slight mistake in this part of the FRSAD draft? :-)


Simon
----
Milstead, Jessica L. (2001). “Standards for Relationships between Subject
Indexing Terms”. In: Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge. Ed. by
Carol A Bean and Rebecca Green. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 53–66.
Received on Friday, 6 November 2009 01:41:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:39:05 GMT