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

RE: [SKOS] relationships between labels

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:59:41 -0000
Message-ID: <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D985297@exchange11.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: "SWD WG" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

> 
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBet
> weenLabels/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 ;-)

But of course not! I'm very glad to see it being used.

> 
> > 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/RelationshipsBetweenLab
> >> els?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/RelationshipsBetweenLa
> >>> bels 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#thesaurusRepresen
> >>> tation-11
> >>>
> >>> [2] 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/AnnotationPatterns
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 23 February 2007 16:00:00 GMT

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