W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > April 2007

Re: SKOS properties

From: Sue Ellen Wright <sellenwright@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:30:50 -0400
Message-ID: <e35499310704260730i6d43a406v1c0c4f2b98659a20@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Stella Dextre Clarke" <sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk>
Cc: "Quentin Reul" <qreul@csd.abdn.ac.uk>, "SWD Working Group" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
Hi, All,
As a terminologist, the notion of adding antonyms as equivalents/synonyms
strikes me as really undesirable. In an ontology-like environment it would
really be problematic. By the same token, it is hard to classify antonym
relations -- this has long been a subject of debate in
terminology/lexicography circles. I rather like the idea of "disjointwith"
together with a scope note. Especially in multilingual concept management,
knowing the antonym is often a real clue to the disambiguation of the
concept associated with a term.
Bye for now
Sue Ellen

On 4/26/07, Stella Dextre Clarke <sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>  You may like to know that ISO 2788 and BS 8723 both allow you to admit
> antonyms as though they were equivalents (with relationship tagged USE/UF)
> if appropriate. For example, in my own thesaurus I have an entry
> "Inconsistency of indexing USE Indexing consistency" because both of these
> terms are actually referring to the same underlying concept. (A scope note
> might describe it  as "the degree of  consistency or
> inconsistency encountered in indexing".) If you want to be more precise, you
> could set it up as a special type of equivalence relationship.
> SKOS could choose to handle antonyms the same way, if it wishes. (*some*
> antonyms, I should stress - not all examples would be suitable for this
> treatment.) In an ontology, you might prefer the relationships to be more
> specific.
> Cheers
> Stella
> *****************************************************
> Stella Dextre Clarke
> Information Consultant
> Luke House, West Hendred, Wantage, Oxon, OX12 8RR, UK
> Tel: 01235-833-298
> Fax: 01235-863-298
> SDClarke@LukeHouse.demon.co.uk
> *****************************************************
>   -----Original Message-----
> *From:* public-esw-thes-request@w3.org [mailto:
> public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Quentin Reul
> *Sent:* 26 April 2007 12:08
> *To:* SWD Working Group
> *Cc:* public-esw-thes@w3.org
> *Subject:* SKOS properties
> Hi all,
> I was looking at the properties available as part of SKOS and realized
> that there wasn't any properties to represent antonyms. However, these are
> sometimes useful and present in some thesauri such as WordNet. Would
> owl:disjointWith be sufficient to represent antonyms?
> Thanks,
> Quentin
> --
> ------------------------------
> Quentin H. Reul
> Computing Science
> University of Aberdeen
> +44 (0)1224 27 *4485*
> qreul@csd.abdn.ac.uk
> http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~qreul

Sue Ellen Wright
Institute for Applied Linguistics
Kent State University
Kent OH 44242 USA
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2007 14:30:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:49 UTC