- From: Sue Ellen Wright <sellenwright@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 09:49:06 -0400
- To: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
- Cc: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, Stella Dextre Clarke <sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk>, public-esw-thes@w3.org, Gail Hodge <Gailhodge@aol.com>
- Message-ID: <e35499310510190649i1fc5259ekcf9ca68118018f07@mail.gmail.com>
I hope it doesn't look like Stella and I gang up (we've actually never met that I recall, but I'm looking forward to that some time somewhere!). In terminology management we have a fundamental distinction: information about terms, which is linguistic, etymological, register-related, standardization related, etc., and information about concepts. Notes can go either place. In TMF, this relation is established by virtue of the principle of inheritance and we've avoided burgeoning different types of "note" in the MDR by imposing this principle of inheritance on "note". In SKOS, I would be a big supporter of note on term, even though it opens up the box to let out a need for notes on other stuff as well. In Peircian linguistics, relations exist at both the surface/term level and the deep-structure concept level, and sometimes these relations interfere with each other in strange and wonderful ways. Bye for now SUe Ellen On 10/19/05, Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl> wrote: > > > Hi Alistair, > > > I think we could fit this into the model, but I'd like to make sure we > do it only where appropriate and absolutely necessary. Hence I'd like for us > to review a good set of requirements before making any design decisions. So > if you could describe the scenarios you have encountered where notes are > usefully associated with non-preferred terms, that would be very helpful. > > From one point of view ("maintenance", "future extensions" or > whatever you might call it) the class approach has the advantage that > you can always attach properties to terms, e.g. properties that might > turn out to be really useful somewhere in the future (i.e. stuff we > cannot anticipate now). > > Another reason is that Terms get a URI so that they can be referred > to. In the WordNet TF, this is a motivation to assign URIs to > WordSenses, instead of using blank nodes. You can then use WordSenses > e.g. to annotate texts. Similar uses might be envisioned for SKOS terms. > > Cheers, > 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 Wednesday, 19 October 2005 13:49:17 UTC