W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > July 2010

Re: SKOS Consistency

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 15:01:22 +0200
Message-ID: <4C35CC22.9070709@few.vu.nl>
To: Quentin Reul <quentin.reul@tenforce.com>
CC: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Quentin,


> Antoine/Alistair,
>
> Thanks for your answers.
>
> I have one more question wrt the integrity of SKOS dataset. The SKOS
> Reference states that skos:prefLabel, skos:altLabel and skos:hiddenLabel
> are all disjoint. This leads inconsistencies when skos:prefLabel and
> skos:altLabel and/or skos:hiddenLabel have the same value for a given
> language. The reference also states that no concept can have 2
> skos:prefLabel for the same language.
>
> Suppose now that I have two SKOS concepts as follows:
>
> <A>   skos:prefLabel "stringA"@en;
>            skosxl:altLabel<C>  .
>
> <B>  skos:prefLabel "stringB"@en;
>           skosxl:altLabel<C>  .
>
> <C>  rdf:type skosxl:Label ;
>          skosxl:literalForm "stringC"@en .
>
> Would this be consistent?


Yes. According to the SKOS-XL semantics this leads to both A and B having "stringC" as skos:altLabel. Which is allowed.

Cheers,

Antoine


>
> Kind regards,
>
> Quentin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alistair Miles [mailto:alimanfoo@googlemail.com]
> Sent: donderdag 8 juli 2010 12:53
> To: Quentin Reul
> Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Subject: Re: SKOS Consistency
>
> Hi Quentin,
>
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 10:47:09AM +0200, Quentin Reul wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I was looking at the SKOS reference [1] and I was unable to determine
>> whether a SKOS model would be consistent if no skos:hasTopConcept
>> property was defined within a concept scheme.
>
> Just adding a general comment to Antoine's nice reply, the open world
> assumption which is part of the RDF and OWL semantics means that an
> absence of some data cannot give rise to inconsistency.
>
> I.e., you can only become inconsistent by saying things (and contradicting
> yourself), not by forgetting to say something.
>
> Checking for "missing" data is, however, very useful in some
> circumstances. E.g., if you have a file which you know is supposed to
> contain all the data for a complete thesaurus, you might then check to see
> if any concepts are missing a prefLabel in some language. In this case,
> your check effectively assumes a closed world. This is a perfectly
> reasonable thing to do, but this type of checking is beyond the scope of
> the SKOS reference.
>
> I.e., the SKOS reference *will* tell you if your data is inconsistent (in
> an open world). It *will not* tell you if your data is missing anything,
> because how you define missingness is up to you, and you will want to vary
> your definition depending on what you're trying to achieve.
>
> Hth,
>
> Alistair
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Quentin
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference
>>
>> --
>> Quentin Reul
>>
>> Semantic Technology Consultant
>> TenForce BVBA
>> Haachtsesteenweg 378
>> 1910 Kampenhout
>> Belgium
>
> --
> Alistair Miles
> Centre for Genomics and Global Health<http://cggh.org>  The Wellcome Trust
> Centre for Human Genetics Roosevelt Drive Oxford
> OX3 7BN
> United Kingdom
> Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
> Email: alimanfoo@gmail.com
> Tel: +44 (0)1865 287669
>
>
Received on Thursday, 8 July 2010 13:01:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 8 July 2010 13:01:58 GMT