- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:26:18 +0200
- To: "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- CC: public-swd-wg@w3.org, public-esw-thes@w3.org
Hello Alistair, [I'm slowly reading mails, sorry for the lag] Thanks for the issue raising work. And yes, what you intended to discuss in your first mail is clearer to me now! I think actually my comments also gave contributions to the issues. I'll try to re-work these in the coming days/weeks... Cheers, Antoine >Hi Antoine, > >Whenever I say "semantics" I mean formal semantics specified using model >theory, see: > >[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#prelim > >I think you have slightly misunderstood my intention. Let me try to >explain a different way, raising some issues in the issue tracker at the >same time ... > > - Issue: "BasicLexicalLabelSemantics" > >Can a resource have two "preferred lexical labels"? Can a lexical label >be both >"preferred" and "alternative" for the same resource? If a lexical label >is >"hidden", can it also be "preferred" or "alternative" for the same >resource? > >See: > > [2] ><http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/BasicLexicalLabelSemantic >s> > [3] <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/31> > > - Issue: "ConceptSchemeLabellingInteractions" > >Can two different concepts in the same concept scheme have any lexical >labels in common? > >I.e. can two different concepts in the same concept scheme both have the >same preferred lexical label? Can two different concepts in the same >concept scheme both have the same alternative lexical label? Can a >lexical label be preferred for one concept and alternative for a >different concept in the same concept scheme? Can a lexical label be >hidden for one concept and either preferred or alternative for a >different concept in the same concept scheme? > >See: > > [4] ><http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptSchemeLabellingInt >eractions> > [5] <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/32> > >Does that clarify? > >Cheers, > >Al. > >-- >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 > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org >>[mailto:public-swd-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Antoine Isaac >>Sent: 02 March 2007 10:47 >>To: Miles, AJ (Alistair) >>Cc: public-swd-wg@w3.org; public-esw-thes@w3.org >>Subject: Re: [SKOS] Possible issue: Uniqueness of >>skos:prefLabel [was Re: [SKOS] inconsistency between Guide >>and Specification >> >> >>Hi Alistair >> >>Thanks for the long mail. I think I got the idea, but the >>naming of the issues is confusing (perhaps because of the >>many different interpretation of "semantics"), and the use of >>examples too. To me the 'content' of the conditions mentioned >>in issue 1 should be discussed in issue 2, while (correct me >>if I'm wrong) issue 1 is just about the question of formally >>encoding these axioms in a specific language or not, and >>decide (or not) to use them as a basis for quality checking >>procedures. >> >>Shortly, I want to make three remarks on what in my eyes >>should be in issue 2, that is the 'content' of the conditions >> >> >> >>>The first of these is that, intuitively, only one label (per >>> >>> >>language >> >> >>>per script) can be "preferred". In other words, it does not >>> >>> >>make sense >> >> >>>for two things to both be "preferred". >>> >>>The second of these is that, intuitively, it does not make >>> >>> >>sense for a >> >> >>>label to be both "preferred" and "alternative"; or both >>> >>> >>"preferred" and >> >> >>>"hidden"; or both "alternative" and "hidden". >>> >>> >>> >>> >>I completely agree with the beginning, less with the >>conditions on "hidden". What if a typo on a term for a >>concept (which could be encoded as hidden, if I understood >>well this property) corresponds to the preferred term of >>another concept? I agree this is borderline, but if someone >>has met this situation it is time to say it before we >>register the condition as valid! >> >> >> >>>In some types of controlled vocabulary, it may be entirely >>> >>> >>reasonable >> >> >>>for two concepts in the same scheme to have the same >>> >>> >>preferred lexical >> >> >>>label (in some language/script). This is the case, for >>> >>> >>example, in some >> >> >>>classification schemes (where two "classes" may have the same >>>"caption") and corporate taxonomies (where two "nodes" may have the >>>same "label"), in which case either the notation or the >>> >>> >>context is used >> >> >>>to disambiguate meaning. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>True. It might also be the case in multilingual thesauri >>having one 'reference' language, in which the prefLabels are >>unambiguous, and 'translations' which are less constrained. >>Notice then that it does not remove completely the >>constraint, which should read like "there is at least one >>language in which the prefLabel is unambiguous" (which is btw >>the case is many classification schemes, in which the >>'artificial' notation language plays this role) >> >> >> >>><snip> For this reason, I agree with Guus that these two >>> >>> >>sentences be >> >> >>>dropped from all future SKOS specifications, and that no formal >>>conditions should be placed on the use of the SKOS lexical labeling >>>properties in conjunction with the SKOS concept scheme constructs >>>(currently skos:inScheme and skos:ConceptScheme). >>> >>>However, for a SKOS concept scheme to be *usable* as a >>> >>> >>thesaurus (i.e. >> >> >>>compatible with software following the ISO2788 standard) some >>>restrictions must be observed on the use of these properties in >>>conjunction. >>> >>> >>> >>>Because of the importance of being able to identify >>> >>> >>compatibility with >> >> >>>existing thesaurus software and standards, I would like to >>> >>> >>argue that >> >> >>>we specify, informally, a set of restrictions which may be >>> >>> >>*optionally* >> >> >>>applied in order to detect thesaurus incompatibility. I.e. these >>>restrictions *would not* be part of the formal semantics of SKOS. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>I agree with the fact that even my "adapted" condition above >>could be restricted so such a 'best practice for thesauri' >>informal and optional approach. >>I would however say that I think this condition apply to a >>very wide range of concept schemes, if not an overwhelming >>majority. The only one I can think of at the moment are >>perhaps the web taxonomies such as Yahoo. And I think none of >>the use cases gathered for SKOS has this ambiguity case. Once >>again, this is a call for (counter-)examples! >> >> >> >>>These restrictions can be stated informally, with examples of SPARQL >>>queries that could be used to detect incompatibilities. Expressing >>>these restrictions formally is complicated and unnecessary. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Of course if no constraint is kept in the end (that is, Guus' >>proposal) I fully agree with this policy. >> >>Cheers, >> >>Antoine >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>[mailto:public-swd-wg-request@w3.org] >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>On Behalf Of Guus Schreiber >>>>Sent: 27 February 2007 12:01 >>>>To: public-swd-wg@w3.org >>>>Cc: SWD WG >>>>Subject: [SKOS] Possible issue: Uniqueness of >>>> >>>> >>skos:prefLabel [was Re: >> >> >>>>[SKOS] inconsistency between Guide and Specification >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Guus Schreiber wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>While trying to write down a resolution for the >>>>> >>>>> >>relationship between >> >> >>>>>labels I found: >>>>> >>>>>in the Core Guide, section on Multilingual La belling [1] >>>>> >>>>>[[ >>>>> It is recommended that no two concepts in the same concept scheme >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>be >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>given the same >>>>> preferred lexical label in any given language. >>>>>]] >>>>> >>>>>in the Core Specification, table of prefLabel [2] >>>>> >>>>>[[ >>>>> No two concepts in the same concept scheme may have the >>>>> >>>>> >>same value >> >> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>for >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>skos:prefLabel >>>>> in a given language. >>>>>]] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>I see no need for placing a constraint on the uniqueness of >>>>skos:prefLabel. While some/many vocabularies will actually abide to >>>>this, the URI of the concept the label is related already ensures >>>>uniqueness of the concept being identified (which I assume was the >>>>reason for including this constraint in the ISO spec). I >>>> >>>> >>also suggest >> >> >>>>that there is no need to place cardinality constraints on >>>>skos:prefLabel. >>>> >>>>The underlying rationale is that we should refrain from >>>> >>>> >>overcommiting >> >> >>>>the SKOS specification when there is no clear need. >>>> >>>>I want to raise this as an issue and propose the above as a >>>>resolution. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>The weaker constraint in the Guide makes sense to me. I will most >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>likely >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>propose an even weaker version in my resolution. >>>>> >>>>>Guus >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>[1] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-guide-20051102/#secmulti >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-skos-core-spec/#prefLabel >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>-- >>>>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 Friday, 30 March 2007 09:26:32 UTC