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

Re: SKOS properties

From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:19:09 +0200
Message-ID: <4631336D.2050008@mondeca.com>
To: Sue Ellen Wright <sellenwright@gmail.com>
Cc: Stella Dextre Clarke <sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk>, Quentin Reul <qreul@csd.abdn.ac.uk>, SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, public-esw-thes@w3.org

Hi Sue Ellen and all

I will keep agnostic, to begin with, on the question of knowing if 
antonymy as the dark side of synonymy. But I would like to point that in 
any case, technically it does not make sense to use "owl:disjointWith" 
property to link two skos:Concept(s), simply because a skos:Concept is/ 
en principe/ not a class (in any case not an owl:Class), and 
owl:disjointWith is used to link two owl:Class to express that they have 
no common instance. Of course in OWL-Full nothing can prevent you to 
declare that a skos:Concept is also a owl:Class, but the logical 
consequences of such a declaration are unpredictable :-)

If one wants to use owl:disjointWith for what I guess Quentin and you 
have in mind, and make it in a clean way, one should define in OWL the 
class of all resources indexed by some "skos:Concept", using a 
"owl:hasValue" restriction on "skos:subject", and then declare that the 
class of resources (documents) with subject "white" is disjoint with the 
class of resources with subject "black". And I'm pretty sure this is not 
true, so I tend to balance rather on Stella's side. But I'm reluctant to 
go as far as declaring those two classes as "owl:equivalentClass", which 
would be the logical expression of considering "white" and "black" as 
synonyms. But certainly the intersection is not empty : many, if not all 
resources with subject "black" have also the subject "white" (IMO). So 
if the classes are not equivalent, they are definitely not disjoint.

So ... I don't know. As Stella says, the standards "allow you" to admit 
antonyms as some kind of synonyms/equivalents, or rather to consider a 
pair of antonyms as two faces of the same concept. But do they 
"recommend" it? And BTW in the case of "black" and "white", on which 
basis should I choose "black" rather than "white" as preferred, and the 
other as synonym? ( ... too hard an issue for 1.15 a.m.)


Sue Ellen Wright a écrit :
> 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 
> <mailto: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 <mailto:SDClarke@LukeHouse.demon.co.uk>
>     *****************************************************
>         -----Original Message-----
>         *From:* public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
>         <mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org>
>         [mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:qreul@csd.abdn.ac.uk>
>         http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~qreul
>         <http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/%7Eqreul>
> -- 
> Sue Ellen Wright
> Institute for Applied Linguistics
> Kent State University
> Kent OH 44242 USA
> sellenwright@gmail.com <mailto:sellenwright@gmail.com>
> swright@kent.edu <mailto:swright@kent.edu>
> sewright@neo.rr.com <mailto:sewright@neo.rr.com>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date: 24/04/2007 17:43


*Bernard Vatant
*Knowledge Engineering
*3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
Web:    www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com>
Tel:       +33 (0) 871 488 459
Mail:     bernard.vatant@mondeca.com <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Blog:    Leçons de Choses <http://mondeca.wordpress.com/>
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2007 23:19:17 UTC

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