- From: Douglas Tudhope <dstudhope@glam.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 11:34:58 -0000
- To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
> I always assumes that the set of altLabels for a concept would constitute > the entry vocabulary (entry terms) for a concept. Yes -- we didn't mean to imply that there was no entry vocabulary. We wanted to raise as a possible limitation what seem to be the omission of the explicit thesaurus Equivalence relation. The alt labels do allow access points to the concept by any of the alternates and thus do allow an entry vocabulary - which is certainly a key point. However there are some other possibilities that may be more difficult to implement without explicit equivalence relationships. - various subtypes of equivalence corresponding to parts-of-speech relationships, US/UKalts, types of synonyms, antonyms (even) - in some cases a term can be considered Equivalent to more than one concept (perhaps with different degrees of confidence). I guess these are more future application possibilities, might be considered as less 'core' and we may be in danger of over-elaborating. However if we go on to extend the current core thesaurus relationships by specialisation then we might also want to distinguish subtypes of equivalence. This might be easier if there was an explicit equivalence relationship. I'm not sure how important this is but the general question is are there consequences in not representing Equivalence explicitly ? Doug
Received on Friday, 27 February 2004 06:39:43 UTC