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

Re: [SKOS] relationships between labels

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:19:30 +0100
Message-ID: <45DECDC2.2040808@few.vu.nl>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
CC: Alistair Miles <a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>


Hello,

I've added on the wiki a page [1] trying to compare term-as-class 
solution with n-ary annotation one.
I've put it on the wiki on purpose, so that people can add/remove things 
if they wish, before the final decision is made...

Cheers,

Antoine

[1] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLabels/Comparison

PS: by the way thanks to Alistair for having updated the SkosDesign page 
of the wiki. I hope we are not actually abusing this page by posting our 
things there ;-)

> Hello Alistair,
>
> Everything amounts to choosing a name for the class representing 
> terms/label/whatever that would not have too much apriori 
> interpretation. That's why I didn't make a choice, hoping this was 
> enough to raise the problem (notice that Label is not perfect either, 
> since it collides with the property rdfs:label).
> Perhaps we could for the moment try something like "LabellingEntity", 
> then. Each labelling entity would be required then to have one 
> (unique) "preferred lexical value" (the equivalent of the prefLabel 
> and altLabel, depending if we were at a preferred LabellingEntity or 
> an alternative one), and possible some alternative forms (but here we 
> don't care). This could be compatible with [2], I think.
>
> Also I had already read your [3]. And agreed with many things there. 
> The only objection I would raise is that, as designers of SKOS, this 
> WG has some freedom decide for the interpretation of the constructs we 
> introduce (provided of course it is not too counter-intuitive). Just 
> think of skos:Concept. SKOS contains a highly debatable entity, 
> assigns it a highly ambiguous term, and restricts its interpretation 
> in a very specific way, which could be argued against by many (just 
> think of skos:Concept vs. owl:Concept). And yet there is interest for 
> SKOS.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
> PS: this discussion aprat I will not fight till death for having 
> "Term-as-class" in SKOS. But I would like any refusal to be further 
> discussed. On the SKOS list there were arguments against it, arguments 
> for it (I have tried to note them, I'll push them to the wiki soon, I 
> hope), but the final decision was made in a way that I could not 
> really keep track of, at least browsing the mailing list...
>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Just a quick note to add to the record that the fundamental 
>> difficulty with the "Term-as-Class" approach is agreeing on the 
>> semantics, and especially the identity conditions, for the members of 
>> the suggested new class.
>>
>> In my experience, while some people may appear to hold superficially 
>> similar notions of what a "Term" is, when you try to express those 
>> notions formally you can arive at some interesting contradictions.
>>
>> For example, in [1] Antoine essentially states that a "Term" cannot 
>> have more than one lexical value. However, others would disagree with 
>> this condition, and would consider e.g. "organisation" and 
>> "organization" to be "variant forms" of the same "Term" (this is the 
>> FAO/AGROVOC approach, see [2]). I don't mean to suggest that either 
>> is "correct", I just want to demonstrate that these two points of 
>> view are actually irreconcilable.
>>
>> A related problem is, if two "Terms" have the same lexical value, are 
>> they therefore the same "Term"? Or can two "Terms" have the same 
>> lexical values, but still be different entities?
>>
>> It's worth noting also that, in the DCMI community, "Term" can mean 
>> property or class or concept. i.e. nothing at all to do with lexical 
>> values.
>>
>> A while ago I tried to write up a discussion of how different points 
>> of view on what a "Term" is lead to drastically different (and 
>> inconsistent) logical definitions - it's at [3], not very clear but 
>> the examples might help.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Al.
>>
>>
>> [1] 
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLabels?action=recall&rev=6 
>>
>> [2] http://owl-workshop.man.ac.uk/acceptedPosition/submission_31.pdf
>> [3] http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/blogs/alistair/archives/25
>>
>> Antoine Isaac wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I have written on 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLabels 
>>> a first attempt regarding the action:
>>>
>>>> [PENDING] ACTION: Antoine to capture the issue on capturing 
>>>> relationships between labels [recorded in 
>>>> [50]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action04]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps the most important, concerning the action itself, is the 
>>> 'motivation' part that gives example of such links between labels.
>>> The 'solutions' part goes into discussion on ways to solve the 
>>> issue, inspired by the material found via [1]  and the page Alistair 
>>> recently wrote about Annotation Patterns [2].
>>> Any further attempt to go into a solution in terms of SKOS model 
>>> shall be worked out in cooperation with the issue on annotations on 
>>> labels, I think.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Antoine
>>>
>>> [1] 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/proposals.html#thesaurusRepresentation-11 
>>>
>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/AnnotationPatterns
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 23 February 2007 11:19:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:28 GMT