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

Re: SKOS properties

From: Sue Ellen Wright <sellenwright@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 08:55:15 -0400
Message-ID: <e35499310704300555h5cb634c4n8eb5d6e2d4abfad9@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Sean Bechhofer" <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: "Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, "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, All,
Of course, this is all true. Whatever "solution" is reached has to provide
some degree of reliability for a certain level of automatic processing,
while at the same time enabling users to point at least human users to
information on the indeterminacy inherent in so-called antonymic relations.
Interoperability is always going to be relative, I think, because of the
nature of the relation. Talking this all through is good, however, because
it may lead to a mechanism that will at least avoid the most egregious
Bye for now
Sue Ellen

On 4/30/07, Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 27 Apr 2007, at 12:03, 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.
> Defining the common relationships is one half of the task -- the
> other is ensuring that the interpretation of those relationships is
> consistent (e.g. broader is a transitive relation). Allowing
> community users to define their own extensions places an onus on them
> to enforce consistent, adding it to the core allows the imposition of
> more "global" constraints, but as Guus points out, potentially raises
> the bar to adoption/implementation.
>        Sean
> --
> Sean Bechhofer
> School of Computer Science
> University of Manchester
> sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk
> http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer

Sue Ellen Wright
Institute for Applied Linguistics
Kent State University
Kent OH 44242 USA
Received on Monday, 30 April 2007 12:55:25 UTC

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