- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:54:02 +0200
- To: Quentin Reul <qreul@csd.abdn.ac.uk>
- CC: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Hi Quentin, Well if you are within a single ConceptScheme the elementary good practice is to create 3 concepts with prefLabel that are unique! No mystery: if you've put crap data in it, you'll get crap data out of it... Notice then that nothing pevents you (until now) to put a shared altLabel, hence having some way to retrieve this "ambiguity". Notice that this is coherent with SKOS approach of concept modelling: skos:Concept are, well, concepts (unit of thoughts, senses, whatever) and not bare words. Cheer, Antoine > Hi Antoine, > > By ambiguity I mean terms that have multiple sense. For example, the > term group either means: > 1. any number of entities (members) considered as a unit. > 2. (chemistry) two or more atoms bound together as a single unit and > forming part of a molecule. > 3. a set that is closed, associative, has an identity element and > every element has an inverse. > > Obviously, a skos concept can be created for each one with and ID > associated. However, querying the thesaurus might pose problems as the > user could have 3 concepts when querying for prefLabel or altLabel. > > Regards, > > Quentin > > Antoine Isaac wrote: >> Hi Quentin, >> >> I won't answer on transitivity, I think I agree with Sean. >> For the second point your feedback is much appreciated! Thanks for >> the reading and reacting effort. >> And for the last point, if by "ambiguity" you mean "mapping", then >> yes, we will work on that. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Antoine >> >>> Hi Antoine, >>> >>> The goal of SKOS is to share knowledge organisation, such as >>> thesauri over the web. Imagine that a user defines a thesaurus >>> containing only skos:broader relations between skos:Concept. If >>> skos:broader and skos:narrower are not transitive, a user x who >>> wants to use this thesaurus to find all narrower concepts of a >>> concept will have to add the relation to every concept in the >>> thesaurus. Hence, transitivity between these relations enable a >>> better sharing among user. >>> >>> Looking at [1], I realised that my question is already covered. I >>> have reviewed the different solutions proposed. I believe that >>> solution 4 (mixing 1 and 2), despite is cons, would be most >>> appropriate. SKOS relations such as skos:definition and >>> skos:altLabel offer more information about the concept described >>> whereas skos:broader and skos:narrower describes relations between >>> terms (in my view anyway). Furthermore, FOAF and Dublin Core are >>> sometimes used in OWL ontologies to add information about concept or >>> the ontology itself. >>> >>> Lastly, I was wondering if the group was planning on addressing the >>> question of ambiguity between terms. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Quentin >>> >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptSemantics >>> >>> Antoine Isaac wrote: >>>> Hi Quentin, >>>>> >>>>> I understood that skos:narrower and skos:broader are inverses. And >>>>> I guess my question is actually going to be covered as part of the >>>>> f2f in Amsterdam [1] in a few weeks time. My personal opinion is >>>>> that these should be transitive in a similar manner to >>>>> rdfs:subClass in OWL especially if users want to be able to get >>>>> information through inference. >>>> >>>> Do you have a specific application which requires this? For the >>>> moment my personal opinion is rather not enthousiastic about >>>> transitivity, and it's grounded in some practical concerns. I guess >>>> other workgroup member will come with strong arguments for >>>> transitivity, but the more practical cases we can discuss, the >>>> better... >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Another question that comes to mind is whether SKOS is intended to >>>>> be used as stand-alone or within an ontology. As part of the >>>>> project I work on, we have used SKOS properties such as >>>>> skos:definition to define concept label in OWL ontologies. But I >>>>> also can see some applications where SKOS can be used to represent >>>>> thesaurus on its own. >>>> >>>> Your sentence is unclear: do my scribblings in [1] cover this >>>> problem? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Antoine >>>> >>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptSemantics >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sean Bechhofer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 24 Sep 2007, at 11:41, Quentin Reul wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have looked at different aspects of SKOS and I have got a few >>>>>>> questions as a result: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First of all, I was wondering if there was any reasoner >>>>>>> available to create a thesaurus tree and find out all the >>>>>>> different terms that are "broader/narrower" for a given term. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My understanding is that the "broader/narrower" relationship is >>>>>>> transitive, i.e. if the user adds a term has being broader, this >>>>>>> term would have the previous term as narrower without having to >>>>>>> add the statement to the second term. >>>>>> >>>>>> Broader/narrower are intended to be *inverses*, which I think is >>>>>> what you mean here. >>>>>> >>>>>> The transitivity of broader/narrower is one of the topics that's >>>>>> up for discussion at the F2F. See "Semantic Relation Properties" >>>>>> in [1]. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> >>>>>> Sean >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/AmsterdamAgenda >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Sean Bechhofer >>>>>> School of Computer Science >>>>>> University of Manchester >>>>>> sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk >>>>>> http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Quentin H. Reul >>>>> Computing Science >>>>> University of Aberdeen >>>>> >>>>> +44 (0)1224 27 *4485* >>>>> qreul@csd.abdn.ac.uk >>>>> http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~qreul >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2007 13:31:20 UTC