W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > December 2007

A new proposal for ISSUE-39 ConceptualMappingLinks

From: Leonard Will <L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 21:45:43 +0000
Message-ID: <f99la3JH8bWHFAXz@mail.willpowerinfo.co.uk>
To: public-swd-wg@w3.org, public-esw-thes@w3.org

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 at 15:43:48, Stella Dextre Clarke 
<sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk> wrote
>> (ISSUE-39C) What's the difference between "related" and
>> "overlapping"? Is there enough precedent to justify a new
>> property for "overlapping"?
>Three options have been discussed, namely related, overlapping and 
>inexact. I guess I am biased by long familiarity with "related". I feel 
>it is sufficient to choose just one, and that it should be "related". 
>It seems to me that "overlapping" is a subset of related, and harder 
>for simple people to use in a hurry. The definition of the associative 
>relationship (RT/RT) in a thesaurus has always been subjective, which 
>some people see as a failing (but I see it as a strength, so long as we 
>recognise that the fuzziness is present).

I agree with Stella that in the traditional thesaurus structure 
overlapping terms have generally been treated as related terms. In 
BS8723-2:2005 we discussed this in paragraph 8.4.2: "Preferred terms 
with overlapping meanings", with the example of "ships" and "boats". 
Another example might be "students" and "pupils".

It would be valid to define "overlapping" as a distinct type of 
relationship, where the scopes of two concepts overlap but neither is 
contained within the other. One specific feature of an "overlapping" 
relationship is that both concepts must fall within the same facet, e.g. 
"objects" or "people" in the examples above. Related term relationships 
are often, though not necessarily, between concepts in different facets, 
such as "ships RT sailors" or "pupils RT teaching".

The question is whether making this distinction is useful. In a 
thesaurus intended for human rather than machine interpretation, all 
that is needed is a way of saying "you have asked for A; you might also 
find it useful to consider using B in your search statement".

Going further than this means moving into the role of ontologies 
designed to allow machines to make these decisions. As I understand it, 
that is not the purpose of SKOS.

Willpower Information       (Partners: Dr Leonard D Will, Sheena E Will)
Information Management Consultants              Tel: +44 (0)20 8372 0092
27 Calshot Way, Enfield, Middlesex EN2 7BQ, UK. Fax: +44 (0)870 051 7276
L.Will@Willpowerinfo.co.uk               Sheena.Will@Willpowerinfo.co.uk
---------------- <URL:http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/> -----------------
Received on Friday, 7 December 2007 21:46:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:45:44 UTC