Re: SKOS properties

>
>
>
> 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.
skos:Concept is an owl:Class, but nothing for now ensures that *a* 
skos:Concept would be an owl:Class. So you can not apply 
owl:disjointWith to a skos:Concept without making a special assumption 
on this concept.

Antoine
>
> 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
>>>   
>>
>

Received on Monday, 30 April 2007 10:27:17 UTC