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: Jon Phipps <jphipps@madcreek.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:59:18 -0500
Message-ID: <34b5049c0702270659j25840781h802a3ab94b3e3def@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: "Guus Schreiber" <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>, public-swd-wg@w3.org

re: "...there will be problems if we have several concept schemes
> introducing distinct concepts with same labels, which is likely to
> happen on the web :-(

This is already happening in the context of the Metadata Registry [1],
with only a dozen or so schemes registered, and I expect it to be even
more frequent as the registry grows,

[1] http://metadataregistry.org/vocabulary/list.html

--Jon

On 2/27/07, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>
> Guus Schreiber a écrit :
>
> >
> > Antoine Isaac wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >
> > And nothing prevents them from keeping on doing so. My point is that I
> > see no reason to make this customary practice a hard constraint for
> > all users of SKOS. Why would we want to prevent some thesaurus
> > builder,who wants to have multiple preferred labels in the same
> > language, to use SKOS?
>
> Let's be honnest: while I see the motivation for having the constraint,
> I don't see really what modelling gains could be obtained by multiple
> preferred labels. But of course if Alan has a case I will re-consider my
> position.
>
> >
> > Anyway. the is no way to express this cardinality constraint in
> > RDF/OWL while taking the multi-lingual aspect into account .
>
> True for the cardinality constraint. But for the uniqueness one, we
> could still use inverseFunctionalProperty, couldn't we? It goes into OWL
> Full for datatype properties, but does the trick it seems. Hmm, well,
> ok, there will be problems if we have several concept schemes
> introducing distinct concepts with same labels, which is likely to
> happen on the web :-(
>
> 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 14:59:30 GMT

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