Re: thesaurusRepresentation-11

Hi all,

I've blogged some more thoughts on this issue at:

http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/blogs/alistair/archives/25

Cheers,

Al.

Carl Mattocks wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
> 
> 

-- 
Alistair Miles
Research Associate
CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Building R1 Room 1.60
Fermi Avenue
Chilton
Didcot
Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
United Kingdom
Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440

Received on Tuesday, 20 June 2006 15:20:52 UTC