- From: Sue Ellen Wright <sellenwright@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 14:24:30 -0500
- To: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
- Cc: Ron Davies <ron@rondavies.be>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
- Message-ID: <e35499310511011124i3ef1600du4bef4fccc7242f8@mail.gmail.com>
We were talking about non-preferred terms and lacunae in certain languages. Your examples here of "USE Research" is wonderful in this respect: in German there is a strict distinction between *Forschung*, which is original investigative, experimental research, and *Recherche*, which is research involving the collection of information and data from existing sources. Both, of course, can be scientific in nature. If I were mapping an English thesaurus using this heading to a similar German one, I'd need to be able to split the concept. German colleagues are inevitably miffed that we don't make the same distinction in English and French, but of course, they have stolen our term in order to split theirs. Sue Ellen On 11/1/05, Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl> wrote: > > Hi Ron, > > Thanks for the examples, but I'm not sure I understand. Is every entry > below a "relationship of equivalence between different tokens used as > altLabels in different languages" ? E.g. does the example below say > > > Scientific research > > USE Research > > Recherche scientifique > > EM Recherche > > altLabel "Scientific research" equivalent to altLabel "Recherce > scientifique" ? > > This only makes sense if "Research" and "recherce" are prefLabels for > the concept and the concepts are NOT equivalent to each other, right? > Else the equivalence between the concepts instead of between the > labels does the trick. > > Mark. > > -- > Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam > mark@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark > -- Sue Ellen Wright Institute for Applied Linguistics Kent State University Kent OH 44242 USA sellenwright@gmail.com swright@kent.edu sewright@neo.rr.com
Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 19:25:35 UTC