- From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:48:33 +0200
- To: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- CC: Sue Ellen Wright <sellenwright@gmail.com>, Stella Dextre Clarke <sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk>, Quentin Reul <qreul@csd.abdn.ac.uk>, SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
Bernard Vatant wrote: > > Hi Sue Ellen and all > > I will keep agnostic, to begin with, on the question of knowing if > antonymy as the dark side of synonymy. But I would like to point that in > any case, technically it does not make sense to use "owl:disjointWith" > property to link two skos:Concept(s), simply because a skos:Concept is/ > en principe/ not a class (in any case not an owl:Class), and > owl:disjointWith is used to link two owl:Class to express that they have > no common instance. Of course in OWL-Full nothing can prevent you to > declare that a skos:Concept is also a owl:Class, but the logical > consequences of such a declaration are unpredictable :-) In OWL Full skos:Concept IS an owl:Class (rdfs:Class and owl:Class are equivalent in OWL Full). I also fail to see the damage you could do with a owl:disjointWith statement. Guus > > If one wants to use owl:disjointWith for what I guess Quentin and you > have in mind, and make it in a clean way, one should define in OWL the > class of all resources indexed by some "skos:Concept", using a > "owl:hasValue" restriction on "skos:subject", and then declare that the > class of resources (documents) with subject "white" is disjoint with the > class of resources with subject "black". And I'm pretty sure this is not > true, so I tend to balance rather on Stella's side. But I'm reluctant to > go as far as declaring those two classes as "owl:equivalentClass", which > would be the logical expression of considering "white" and "black" as > synonyms. But certainly the intersection is not empty : many, if not all > resources with subject "black" have also the subject "white" (IMO). So > if the classes are not equivalent, they are definitely not disjoint. > > So ... I don't know. As Stella says, the standards "allow you" to admit > antonyms as some kind of synonyms/equivalents, or rather to consider a > pair of antonyms as two faces of the same concept. But do they > "recommend" it? And BTW in the case of "black" and "white", on which > basis should I choose "black" rather than "white" as preferred, and the > other as synonym? ( ... too hard an issue for 1.15 a.m.) > > Bernard > > Sue Ellen Wright a écrit : >> Hi, All, >> As a terminologist, the notion of adding antonyms as >> equivalents/synonyms strikes me as really undesirable. In an >> ontology-like environment it would really be problematic. By the same >> token, it is hard to classify antonym relations -- this has long been >> a subject of debate in terminology/lexicography circles. I rather like >> the idea of "disjointwith" together with a scope note. Especially in >> multilingual concept management, knowing the antonym is often a real >> clue to the disambiguation of the concept associated with a term. >> Bye for now >> Sue Ellen >> >> >> On 4/26/07, *Stella Dextre Clarke* <sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk >> <mailto:sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk>> wrote: >> >> You may like to know that ISO 2788 and BS 8723 both allow you to >> admit antonyms as though they were equivalents (with relationship >> tagged USE/UF) if appropriate. For example, in my own thesaurus I >> have an entry "Inconsistency of indexing USE Indexing consistency" >> because both of these terms are actually referring to the same >> underlying concept. (A scope note might describe it as "the >> degree of consistency or inconsistency encountered in indexing".) >> If you want to be more precise, you could set it up as a special >> type of equivalence relationship. >> SKOS could choose to handle antonyms the same way, if it wishes. >> (*some* antonyms, I should stress - not all examples would be >> suitable for this treatment.) In an ontology, you might prefer the >> relationships to be more specific. >> Cheers >> 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 >> <mailto:SDClarke@LukeHouse.demon.co.uk> >> ***************************************************** >> >> -----Original Message----- >> *From:* public-esw-thes-request@w3.org >> <mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org> >> [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org >> <mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org>] *On Behalf Of >> *Quentin Reul >> *Sent:* 26 April 2007 12:08 >> *To:* SWD Working Group >> *Cc:* public-esw-thes@w3.org <mailto:public-esw-thes@w3.org> >> *Subject:* SKOS properties >> >> Hi all, >> I was looking at the properties available as part of SKOS and >> realized that there wasn't any properties to represent >> antonyms. However, these are sometimes useful and present in >> some thesauri such as WordNet. Would owl:disjointWith be >> sufficient to represent antonyms? >> Thanks, >> Quentin >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Quentin H. Reul >> Computing Science >> University of Aberdeen >> >> +44 (0)1224 27 *4485* >> qreul@csd.abdn.ac.uk <mailto:qreul@csd.abdn.ac.uk> >> http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~qreul >> <http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/%7Eqreul> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Sue Ellen Wright >> Institute for Applied Linguistics >> Kent State University >> Kent OH 44242 USA >> sellenwright@gmail.com <mailto:sellenwright@gmail.com> >> swright@kent.edu <mailto:swright@kent.edu> >> sewright@neo.rr.com <mailto:sewright@neo.rr.com> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: >> 269.6.0/775 - Release Date: 24/04/2007 17:43 >> > -- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Computer Science De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands T: +31 20 598 7739/7718; F: +31 84 712 1446 Home page: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/
Received on Sunday, 29 April 2007 22:48:54 UTC