Re: thesaurusRepresentation-11

Like this idea ...  we could use lessons learned from those using
different flavors of OWL [Lite / DL / Full]


<quote who="Mark van Assem">
>
> Hi all,
>
> I had a chat with Dan at ESWC'06 and he suggested a solution: have a
> "fat" SKOS version that has the Term class, and an automated procedure
> that produces a "lean" version.
>
> The fat version would have a class Term with a label property attached
> to it (and other stuff attached to it). The label property of the terms
> in a specific thesaurus can be automatically converted to skos:prefLabel
> and skos:altLabel properties on skos:Concepts to produce a lean version
> (i.e.  what the current SKOS produces).
>
> Come to think of it, this is very similar to the approach we took with
> WordNet [1]. The Full version has Synsets, WordSenses and Words, where
> the final literals are in a wn:lexicalLabel attached to the Words. The
> Basic version consists of the Synsets plus additional file with
> wn:senseLabels. These are attached to Synsets, and their contents is
> from the lexicalLabels of the Words that are contained in the Synset.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark.
>
> [1]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wn-conversion
>
> Alistair Miles wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've added this item to the proposals and issues list, see:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/proposals#thesaurusRepresentation-11
>>
>> I've included a link to this thread, so that Stella's comments are
>> noted. I included the point about "USE x OR y"/"UFO" because it will
>> probably interact with SKOS representation of "USE x + y"/"UF+", i.e.
>> the representation will need to clearly distinguish between the two,
>> even if the former is not recommended.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Al.
>>
>> Stella Dextre Clarke wrote:
>>> Mark,
>>> Re point 1, yes, I dare say there may be other uses. Futile to try and
>>> enumerate all of them! And I agree it is an advantage if SKOS is able
>>> to
>>> accommodate all of the information carried in a thesaurus. That said,
>>> it
>>> is possible to comply with ISO 2788 or BS 8723 and still have some
>>> extra
>>> features that are not used anywhere else. To be able to accommodate
>>> such
>>> extra features, you would need to have a capability for defining custom
>>> relationships and data types. I vote for coping with what is described
>>> in the standards, and what is commonly encountered, before tackling the
>>> obscure  curiosities that may still be emerging.
>>>
>>> RE point 3, USE...OR/UFO  is not very common in my experience. There
>>> tend to be few instances, even in those thesauri that do use it. But
>>> exceptions are sure to occur somewhere. WE just don't recommend it, in
>>> the standards.
>>> Stella
>>>
>>> *****************************************************
>>> Stella Dextre Clarke
>>> Information Consultant
>>> Luke House, West Hendred, Wantage, Oxon, OX12 8RR, UK
>>> Tel: 01235-833-298
>>> Fax: 01235-863-298
>>> SDClarke@LukeHouse.demon.co.uk
>>> *****************************************************
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Mark van Assem [mailto:mark@few.vu.nl] Sent: 09 June 2006 08:16
>>> To: Stella Dextre Clarke
>>> Cc: 'Alistair Miles'; public-esw-thes@w3.org
>>> Subject: Re: thesaurusRepresentation-11
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Stella,
>>>
>>> Some quick comments on your comments ;-)
>>>
>>>> 1. "Any type of annotation associated with a non-descriptor" Yes, I
>>>> believe this is useful and needed by a lot of vocabulary managers. I
>>>> don't see it as a requirement while using a thesaurus in connection
>>>> with searching a database (or other information resource), but it
>>>> certainly has uses while managing and maintaining the vocabulary.
>>>
>>> There may be other uses like for (semi-)automated mapping and NLP. More
>>> general: It would be a pity if some thesauri get two RDF versions, one
>>> in SKOS and one in another schema for the stuff that did not fit into
>>> SKOS. E.g. how to deal with sources that are annotated with the other
>>> version but should be used together?
>>>
>>>> 3. "1:n relationships between non-descriptors and descriptors ("USE x
>>>> OR y"/"USO")"
>>>
>>> Would you have an idea on how often this relationship is used?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Mark.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
>   Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
>         markREMOVE@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
>
>


-- 
Carl Mattocks
co-Chair OASIS (ISO/TS 15000) ebXMLRegistry Semantic Content SC
co-Chair OASIS Business Centric Methodology TC
CEO CHECKMi
v/f (usa) 908 322 8715
www.CHECKMi.com
Semantically Smart Compendiums
[AOL] IM CarlCHECKMi

Received on Friday, 16 June 2006 14:00:08 UTC