RE: lime:entry query

Hi all,

Ya, +1 Fahad. Manuel and me were also wondering, after reading your email, if it was omitted it for some reason or if was simply missed. The second option is not so remote, also considering that it with the change of namespace, it was one of the last ones to be touched before finalization.

Concerning the parallel with SKOS, well that holds true for collections, but a better parallel is with skos:inScheme (having an inverse) or, out of SKOS, with void:inDataset. Both these last ones also have no inverse, but actually exists only from resources to their collectors, probably to avoid the huge amount of resources that would populate the collector’s CBD, the (in this case not-so) concise bounded description. Something we might want to consider.
In the case of void, this is also normal because usually the property would be linking resources existing in the dataset to their metadata proxy (the Dataset instance).

Cheers,

Armando






From: johnmccrae@gmail.com [mailto:johnmccrae@gmail.com] On Behalf Of John McCrae
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 1:03 PM
To: Fahad Khan <anasfkhan81@gmail.com>
Cc: public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Subject: Re: lime:entry query

Hi Fahad,

Yes, you make a good point! It is probably a very good idea and I can see the use case for introducing an isEntryOf property. Perhaps, we can add this when we add new modules that are being discussed?

All I can say in our defence is that other models such as SKOS<https://www.w3.org/2009/08/skos-reference/skos.html#member> do it the same way...

Regards,
John



On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Fahad Khan <anasfkhan81@gmail.com<mailto:anasfkhan81@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Everyone,
Studying the ontolex model again I noticed there was no inverse relation for the lime:entry relation between a lexicon and its entries. Won't this cause problems if I'm working with a large lexicon where the individual entries belong to separate files with the lexicon file pointing to each entry? I can point one way (lexicon -> entry) but not back (at least not with an ontolex relation). Or maybe I've misunderstood something.
Cheers,
Fahad