- From: Douglas Tudhope <dstudhope@glam.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 19:30:32 -0000
- To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
>Types of synonyms and parts of speech: The standards mention types of equivalence relationships. Most of these are not currently explicitly represented. It is possible that they might be though in the future by specialisation. Some thesauri do in fact explicitly represent types of equivalence (see below). From Aitchison, Gilchrist & Bawden, 2000 (the new draft thesaurus standard is similar) F1.1.1 synonyms popular - scientific names common names - trade names standard names - slang current - obselete etc F1.1.2 Lexical variants variant spellings abbreviations - full names singular - plural (perhaps in some cases noun-adjective - I think it is useful to have the option of augmenting thesauri in the future with some basic linguistic relationships. ) In some Thesauri, different types of equivalence are explicitly represented eg (I've also seen examples concerning trade names and types of scientific name in other thesauri) from http://www.multites.com/conference03.htm, CAB Thesaurus presentation (James Brooks) CAB Thesaurus in MultiTes - Equivalence Relationships CNP - Common Name PT vs SNN - Scientific Name NPT CSN - Chemical Standard Name vs CTN - Chemical Trade Name FFT - Full Form vs ABB - Abbreviated Form SEN - Senior Scientific Name vs JUN - Junior Scientific Name SNP - Scientific Name PT vs CNN - Common Name NPT UK - British Form vs US - American Form The question is whether the concept plus labels route would make these distinctions harder to make? One way I suppose would be to introduce more types of mark-up in the labels as for the language tags? I think it is important to try and cater for common (and maybe extensible for future) subtypes here - could this be done by specific tags? > A label may be used as a label for more than one concept. Homographs are common in natural language and can arise in controlled languages. Some thesauri do have more than one concept associated with a non-preferred term (eg AAT). My concern was that only having labels in SKOS would make it more difficult for a retrieval application to deal with this sensibly - having to process all sets of labels for a thesaurus as opposed to directly looking up a term in the entry vocabulary. However on reflection, I guess that applications would populate a dictionary or set of data structures from the SKOS information for a particular KOS and work off that. Is this how you see it, Al? Doug
Received on Thursday, 4 March 2004 14:35:29 UTC