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

Re: [SKOS] Proposed Resolution for ISSUE 26: RelationshipBetweenLabels

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:17:33 +0100
Message-ID: <45E53A9D.4090903@few.vu.nl>
To: Jon Phipps <jphipps@madcreek.com>
CC: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Hi Jon,

>
>
>>
>> My proposal is based on the assumption that the
>> vast majority of thesauri will not have label
>> relations, and therefore I wish not to have the
>> burden of terms as classes on them. But I'm happy
>> to be convinced my assumption is wrong.
>
>
> Given the use cases and motivation cited in [2], most of the
> relationships defined in the motivation seem to represent
> relationships between concepts rather than between labels, so in that
> case I'm inclined to agree.

I'm quite puzzled here. For me things like synonymy and abbreviation are 
clearly at the lexical or terminological level, not at the conceptual 
one. If I have "car" and "automobile" I would like have just one concept 
for them, and not two that I would declare equivalent afterwards....

>
> The one area where I think label relationships will very frequently be
> required will be multilingual relationships between labels other than
> prefLabel (assuming we let prefLabel keep its singularity). There
> isn't a good way to declare relationships between multiple
> translations of any label-related statement, but especially altLabels,
> whose object is a literal. This might unfortunately also be true of
> notes as well, but probably less of less importance.
>
> One other possible solution might be to recommend (not require) that
> in the sole case of a need to maintain multilingual versions of a
> concept and all of its literal properties, that concept schemes be
> considered single language and provide for this purpose an
> isTranslationOf relationship (or some other form of typed equivalence)
> between concepts?

This could do the trick, but I'm convinced we have enough multi lingual 
cases (and too small a number of explicit label translation cases) to 
say this would be counter-productive. All things considered, I actually 
would prefer to have to encode the translation links using whatever 
complex annotation alternative than to have to split concept schemes 
into more-or-less duplicate versions (and God knows I am not personnally fond of 
this annotation solution ;-)

Cheers,

Antoine

>
> I'm also thinking here of my daughter, the soon-to-graduate Spanish
> major, who tells me that there are concepts in Spanish that can't be
> expressed in English but for which there are English equivalents that
> are considered to be effective translations.
>
> Anyway, just a thought.
>
> --Jon
>
> [2]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLabels
>
>
> --Jon
>
>> > On 2/27/07, Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ISSUE-26 [1]
>> >> RelationshipsBetweenLabels
>> >>
>> >> Considering that:
>> >> - representing lexical labels as classes would
>> >> lead to an undesirable complication of SKOS in
>> >> straightforward use cases for the application of SKOS,
>> >> - representing relationships between labels is
>> >> required in some use cases, and therefore an
>> >> escape mechanism should preferably be available
>> >> for such thesauri,
>> >>
>> >> I propose the WG opts for an amended version of
>> >> the second solution proposed in [2]:
>> >>
>> >> RESOLUTION
>> >>
>> >> The WG resolves to add the following classes and
>> >> properties to the SKOS specification [3]:
>> >>
>> >> - the class skos:LabelRelation
>> >> - the properties skos:labelRelationSubject and
>> >> skos:labelRelationObject with domain LabelRelation
>> >> and range rdfs:literal
>> >>
>> >> In addition, the SKOS Guide should describe
>> >> guidelines for SKOS users to define their label
>> >> relations as specializations of LabelRelation and
>> >> gives examples of its intended usage. The SKOS
>> >> specification refrains for now to predefine
>> >> specializations of LabelRelation.
>> >>
>> >> Contrary to the proposal in [2] the class
>> >> LabelRelation is not defined as a subclass of
>> >> skos:Annotation (which is in any case not yet part
>> >> of the spec), as it is not an "annotation", but a
>> >> lexical relationship.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/26
>> >> [2]
>> >> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLabels
>> >> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-skos-core-spec/
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Computer Science
>> >> De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
>> >> T: +31 20 598 7739/7718; F: +31 84 712 1446
>> >> Home page: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> -- 
>> Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Computer Science
>> De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
>> T: +31 20 598 7739/7718; F: +31 84 712 1446
>> Home page: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/
>>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 28 February 2007 08:56:45 GMT

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