W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > November 2009

Re: Best practices: representing homonym relationships in SKOS

From: Stella Dextre Clarke <stella@lukehouse.org>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 11:07:05 +0000
Message-ID: <4AFFE0D9.30709@lukehouse.org>
To: Thomas Bandholtz <thomas.bandholtz@innoq.com>
CC: Bradley Allen <bradley.p.allen@gmail.com>, public-esw-thes@w3.org, karl+w3c@la-grange.net, public-lod@w3.org
Thomas Bandholtz wrote:
> One example:
> "bass [fish]" and "bass [music]", which are about "bass" as a homograph
> (not a homophone).
> You see I used some kind of "qualifier" to distinguish the two meanings.
> This is a common practise, not a standard.
The practice of disambiguating homographs by adding qualifiers in 
parentheses has been part of the ISO 2788 standard (which sets out how 
to construct a thesaurus) ever since its first edition in 1974. For this 
reason it is found very commonly indeed (but usually with round 
brackets, not square ones. e.g."bridges (dental)" and "bridges 
(roadways)"  ) An important proviso in ISO 2788 and the other standards 
derived from this, e.g. ISO 5964 and the forthcoming ISO 25964, is that 
the qualifier is treated as forming part of the term. In this way we 
avoid any situation where two different concepts are represented by the 
same term. Homophones are not considered an issue in ISO 2788 and the 
existing derived standards.
Stella Dextre Clarke
Information Consultant
Luke House, West Hendred, Wantage, OX12 8RR, UK
Tel: 01235-833-298
Fax: 01235-863-298
Received on Sunday, 15 November 2009 11:07:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:45:59 UTC