Re: Modelling 'term-to-term' relationships in SKOS

I think these types of label are best modelled as subtypes of the existing
label properties - whether they are preferred (perhaps under different
circumstances or not is something that depends on the particular thesaurus in
question.

The language thing is separate - we inherit that already from XML, as others
have pointed out.

Cheers

Chaals

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Douglas Tudhope wrote:

>
>>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

Received on Friday, 5 March 2004 14:29:42 UTC