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

Re: [SKOS] Possible issue: Uniqueness of skos:prefLabel [was Re: [SKOS] inconsistency between Guide and Specification

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:09:22 +0100
Message-ID: <45E42D82.1010608@few.vu.nl>
To: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
CC: public-swd-wg@w3.org

Hi Guus,

I'm not really convinced by this argument, for two reasons:
- relevance to domain practice: even if a motivation for the constraint 
in ISO and other thesaurus modelling approaches (especially term-based 
ones, which are still encountered in many situations) was this reference 
uniqueness, there are also strong normalization issues underway. People 
managing thesauri are often spending a lot of time distilling *the* term 
that embodies the concept in the best way. And while standard database 
have been allowing for unique keys for decades, they still keep to this 
constraint on the labels.
- coherence of the model: if we remove all the cardinality constraints, 
what would be the indended meaning of a preferred label? This might 
sound a rather stupid argument, but I really cannot see what makes a 
label 'preferred' if its associated concept has two such labels.

Cheers,

Antoine

>
>
>
> Guus Schreiber wrote:
>
>>
>> While trying to write down a resolution for the relationship between 
>> labels I found:
>>
>> in the Core Guide, section on Multilingual La belling [1]
>>
>> [[
>>   It is recommended that no two concepts in the same concept scheme 
>> be given the same
>>   preferred lexical label in any given language.
>> ]]
>>
>> in the Core Specification, table of prefLabel [2]
>>
>> [[
>>   No two concepts in the same concept scheme may have the same value 
>> for skos:prefLabel
>>   in a given language.
>> ]]
>
>
> I see no need for placing a constraint on the uniqueness of 
> skos:prefLabel. While some/many vocabularies will actually abide to 
> this, the URI of the concept the label is related already ensures 
> uniqueness of the concept being identified (which I assume was the 
> reason for including this constraint in the ISO spec). I also suggest 
> that there is no need to place cardinality constraints on skos:prefLabel.
>
> The underlying rationale is that we should refrain from overcommiting 
> the SKOS specification when there is no clear need.
>
> I want to raise this as an issue and propose the above as a resolution.
>
>>
>> The weaker constraint in the Guide makes sense to me. I will most 
>> likely propose an even weaker version in my resolution.
>>
>> Guus
>>
>>
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-guide-20051102/#secmulti
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-skos-core-spec/#prefLabel
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 27 February 2007 13:09:27 GMT

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