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

Re: SKOS properties

From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 01:00:52 +0200
Message-ID: <463523A4.1070609@cs.vu.nl>
To: Quentin Reul <qreul@csd.abdn.ac.uk>
CC: 'SWD Working Group' <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, public-esw-thes@w3.org

Quentin Reul wrote:
> Hi all,
> I think it would make sense to have a skos:antonym and it's quite 
> appropriate to think of two antonyms as being a special type of 
> relations between terms. WordNet, which is probably one of the most 
> common general thesaurus, uses antonyms. For example, the antonym of 
> "serviceman" is "civilian" but both are related as they both describe a 
> person.
> As SKOS is still in its development I don't why it wouldn't be possible 
> to add this feature to get a better linguistic representation of thesaurus.

The problem is that with every new SKOS construct 
we increase the complexity of SKOS and therefore 
raise the barrier to its use. So the question is 
whether skos:antonym is sufficiently general to be 
of use to tip the balance. I tend to agree with 
Bernard that for the moment I would opt for the 
local-extension approach. I expect the 
documentation to contain lots of examples of how 
to extend SKOS for typical cases such as antonym. 
BTW the fact that antonym is part of WordNet is 
not really sufficient for me. There are some 17 
relations in WordNet and SKOS will not support all 
of them, I assume.

[co-chair SWD]

> Cheers,
> Quentin
> Bernard Vatant wrote:
>> Hi Stella
>> Stella Dextre Clarke a écrit :
>>> Sue Ellen,
>>> Yes, I can see that treating antonyms as synonyms would not suit a 
>>> terminology application at all. And even for thesaurus applications, 
>>> it only works for *some* antonyms in *some* contexts. (For example 
>>> the black/white and war/peace cases that have been mentioned look 
>>> most  unlikely candidates.)
>> I chose "black" and "white" for sake of simplicity, knowing they are 
>> unlikely to appear as concepts in a thesaurus. But we seem to all 
>> agree that antonyms deserve a special treat. And that a pair of 
>> antonyms should be represented in SKOS as two different instances of 
>> skos:Concept, right?
>>> For a thesaurus manager, however, it is nice to be able to apply this 
>>> treatment in selected cases. Can/should  SKOS try to meet all needs 
>>> of all user groups?
>> Maybe SKOS (core at least) should not, but RDF can, as Jakob wrote 
>> this need could be dealt with a specific subproperty of skos:related
>> skos:antonym      rdfs:subPropertyOf      skos:related
>> If it's not defined in SKOS namespace, nothing prevents to declare it 
>> in a specific extension defined by those who have this need
>> my-skos-extension:antonym      rdfs:subPropertyOf      skos:related
>> I've been playing with medical terminologies lately, and there is this 
>> notion of "excludes" in ICD10. See http://www.icd10.ch/
>> This is also a form a antagonist relationship, which could be defined 
>> as subproperty of skos:related, maybe specific to ICD, maybe reusable 
>> by other vocabularies.
>> There is no difficulty to specify subproperties of skos:related in 
>> RDF. The real question is to know if those specifications are of 
>> enough general use to be integrated in SKOS core, or defined in SKOS 
>> extensions, or left to the community of users to specify in their own 
>> namespace. For antonyms and exclusions, I'm leaning towards the second 
>> solution.
>> Cheers
>> Bernard
>>> 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
>>> *****************************************************
>> *Bernard Vatant
>> *Knowledge Engineering
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>> *Mondeca**
>> *3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
>> Web:    www.mondeca.com *MailScanner has detected a possible fraud 
>> attempt from "www.mondeca.com" claiming to be* <http://www.mondeca.com>
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>> Tel:       +33 (0) 871 488 459
>> Mail:     bernard.vatant@mondeca.com <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
>> Blog:    Leçons de Choses *MailScanner has detected a possible fraud 
>> attempt from "mondeca.wordpress.com" claiming to be* 
>> <http://mondeca.wordpress.com/>
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 <http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/%7Eqreul>

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Computer Science
De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
T: +31 20 598 7739/7718; F: +31 84 712 1446
Home page: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/
Received on Sunday, 29 April 2007 23:01:18 UTC

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