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

Re: ISSUE-26: SimpleExtension proposal

From: Daniel Rubin <rubin@med.stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 15:06:37 -0700
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20070529150048.04778d18@med.stanford.edu>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>,SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

see below:

At 10:13 AM 5/29/2007, Antoine Isaac wrote:

>Daniel Rubin a écrit :
>>
>>Guus,
>>I have a few comments on this. See below:
>>
>>At 06:25 AM 5/29/2007, Guus Schreiber wrote:
>>
>>>ACTION: Guus revise his ISSUE-26 proposal to 
>>>account for other options [recorded in 
>>>http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-swd-minutes.html#action07]
>>>All,
>>>
>>>Below is my SimpleExtension proposal for isue 
>>>26 (relations between labels). I haven't had 
>>>time to check the syntax of the examples or put it on the Wiki.
>>>Guus
>>>
>>>
>>>SKOS ISSUE-26 Relations between Labels: "SimpleExtension" Proposal
>>>
>>>This is a proposal for resolution of SKOS ISSUE-33.
>>>0. Summary
>>>
>>>The proposal extends SKOS with the possibility to define a term as a
>>>resource, such that statements can be made about it. To this end we
>>>introduce the class skos:Term plus the corresponding properties (pref,
>>>alt, hidden) which link a concept to a term.
>>>The property skos:relatedTerm can be used to express relations between
>>>terms. Applications will typically specialize this to define
>>>particular lexical relations.
>>>The proposal ensures OWL DL compatibility.
>>>
>>>1. Vocabulary
>>>
>>>The proposal introduces the following new vocabulary:
>>>
>>>  skos:Term
>>
>>Can we get the English definition of a skos:Term?
>>
>>Also, in terms of naming "Term," this is find 
>>if SKOS restricts itself to modeling thesauri, 
>>but for people who are creating ontologies to 
>>represent things in reality, "entity" would be 
>>better than "term". In my biomedical use cases, I have examples of this.
>I think we might have a problem here. The idea 
>is just to create links between labels 
>associated to concepts, not between all the things that are in the world.
>Could you give us one of your examples?

In the RadLex use case, for example, "terms" are 
entities in reality, such as blood vessels. These 
are linked together via relations such as 
"part-of" and "continuous-with".  It would be 
better for these things to be called "Entity" 
instead of "Term".  I think "Entity" would be 
consistent with terms and things in reality.
Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2007 22:06:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:29 GMT