RE: NEW issue 6 - defining semantic relationships

Hi Dave,

I agree, I think having a property set like ...

<soks:semanticRelation>
 ^
 |
<thes:broader>
 ^                        ^                           ^
 |                        |                           |
<thes:broaderGeneric>    <thes:broaderInstantive>    <thes:broaderPartOf>

... would be good for thesaurus-specific applications.  However, here is
where we start treading on the toes of RDF RDFS and OWL.  The property
<thes:broaderGeneric> would be semantically equivalent to <rdfs:subClassOf>,
and the property <thes:broaderInstantive> would be semantically equivalent
to <rdf:type>.  How do we handle this kind of overlap? 

Al.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) [mailto:A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk]
> Sent: 18 November 2003 13:11
> To: 'public-esw-thes@w3.org'
> Subject: FW: NEW issue 6 - defining semantic relationships
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers Dave.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Reynolds [mailto:der@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 17 November 2003 15:52
> To: Miles, AJ (Alistair) 
> Subject: Re: NEW issue 6 - defining semantic relationships
> 
> 
> This seems amenable to subProperty relationships.
> 
> You could have a base property "thesaurusRelationship", 
> subProperties for 
> broader/narrower, subProperties of those for specific usages 
> like strict 
> isa, partof etc. In that way some could use a strict partOf 
> relation and a 
> thesaurus tool that only understood BT would be able to treat it as a 
> broaderTerm.
> 
> Dave
> 
> Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:
> 
> > I've added this issue to the RDF Thesaurus ESW Wiki.
> > 
> > http://esw.w3.org/topic/RdfThesaurus?action=show
> > 
> > Short summary:
> > 
> > Issue 6 - Defining semantic relationships
> > 
> > Description: A thesaurus consists of concepts, labels for 
> concepts, and
> > semantic relationships between concepts. A semantic 
> relationship is a
> > relationship of meaning. Most thesauri use a similar set of semantic
> > relationships, which they label 'broader' 'narrower' and 'related'. 
> > 
> > Problem 1: 'broader/narrower' means different things in different
> thesauri.
> > In some thesauri it means strictly class-subsumption. In 
> other thesauri it
> > can mean either is-a, instance-of, or part-of. Also 'related' is not
> > consistently used. For example some thesauri model part-of 
> relations with
> > 'related', others use 'broader/narrower' 
> > 
> > => We must invent some mechanism for providing clear definitions of
> semantic
> > relationships, and for removing any scope for ambiguity. 
> > 
> > Problem 2: some thesauri have semantic relations other than
> > 'broader/narrower' and 'related'. Some overcome the 
> 'broader/narrower'
> > fuzziness by using 'BTI', 'BTG' and 'BTP', which stand for
> > 'broader-term-instantive' 'broader-term-generic' and
> > 'broader-term-partitive' respectively. In others there are custom
> > relationships like 'related-broader'. 
> > 
> > => We must provide some mechanism by which users can extend 
> the given
> > relationship set and define their own semantic relations. 
> > 
> > .....
> > 
> > 
> > Alistair Miles
> > 
> > CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> > Building R1 Room 1.60
> > Fermi Avenue
> > Chilton
> > Didcot
> > Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
> > United Kingdom
> > 
> > Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
> > Telephone: +44 (0)1235 445440
> > 
> > 
>

Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2003 08:22:10 UTC