- From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:25:13 +0100
- To: "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: "SWD WG" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Hi Antoine, > Hi Alistair > > Hi all, > > > > Here is an alternative proposal for resolution of ISSUE-26 > (RelationshipsBetweenLabels): > > > > > <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLab > > els/ProposalFour?action=recall&rev=4> > > > > I've called this proposal "Minimal Label Relation" because > it is very similar to Guus' "LabelRelation" proposal, but > with a bit less ontological commitment. > > > Why? Note I am referring to Guus' "LabelRelation" proposal [3], not Guus' "Simple Extension" proposal [1]. > By the way this 'counting' does not take into account the > weight of the seeLabelRelation. To me, you could remove it, > this would have the benefit of not anchoring your link to one > concept exclusively. This anchoring can have some advantages, > but it also seems very restrictive. > If you were to have 2 labels linked that belong to different > concepts (e.g. if your label relationship is 'antonym') would > you attach the labelRelation instance to both concepts? The proposal has deliberately weak semantics for skos:seeLabelRelation. There is no requirement to use it all. There are no constraints its cardinality in either direction. Also (from [4]): "...there does not necessarily have to be any correspondance between the lexical labels of a resource, and the labels involved in a label relation, to which the resource is related via the skos:seeLabelRelation property" > Antoher question, purely formal: is this new proposal of > yours deprecating the more general proposal you launched in [2]? I prefer the "Minimal Label Relation" proposal [4] to the "LabelAnnotation" proposal [2]. So many proposal names :) Cheers, Al. [3] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Feb/0195.html> [4] <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLabels/ProposalFour?action=recall&rev=4> > > Antoher question, purely formal: is this new proposal of > yours deprecating the more general proposal you launched in [2]? > > Cheers, > > Antoine > > [1] > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBet > weenLabels/ProposalThree > [2] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Mar/0092.html > > > ACTION: Alistair to provide details of alternative proposal > [recorded > > in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/12-swd-minutes.html#action10] > > > > --done > > > > Cheers, > > -- > > Alistair Miles > > Research Associate > > Science and Technology Facilities Council Rutherford Appleton > > Laboratory Harwell Science and Innovation Campus 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 Friday, 15 June 2007 13:25:42 UTC