RE: Best practices: representing homonym relationships in SKOS

Hi Bradley,

The EUROVOC model [ev] maps its model as follows into SKOS-XL [xl] (using
examples from previous responses):
<C1> a skos:Concept;
     xl:prefLabel <L1>.
<L1> a xl:Label;
     xl:literalForm "bass (fish)"@en;
     ev:qualifier "fish"^^xsd:string .
<C2> a skos:Concept;
     xl:prefLabel <L2>.
<L2> a xl:Label;
     xl:literalForm "bass (music)"@en;
     ev:qualifier "music"^^xsd:string .
Using skos rules, this also generates:
<C1> skos:prefLabel "bass (fish)"@en .
<C2> skos:prefLabel "bass (music)"@en .

This captures standard guidelines as follows:
- in EUROVOC, the skos:prefLabel are unique per language
- The qualifier is used as prescribed by the standard
There is no property for the qualifier in skos, hence the definition of
ev:qualifier.
The property is only useful for applications that need the label as such
without its qualifiers.
(e.g. qualifier management, ...).

kr, Johan De Smedt. 
=================== 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bradley Allen
> Sent: Friday, 13 November, 2009 18:06
> To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Subject: Best practices: representing homonym relationships in SKOS
> 
> Apologies if you've seen this on the LOD or SW lists, but it is
> probably better posed to this audience: is there any best practice or,
> failing that, good ideas for representing homonymy in SKOS? Best I can
> come up with is subclassing skos:semanticRelation with something like
> skos:homonym, and letting the client sort out which of the lexical
> labels might be involved. Not excited about the need to go to a class
> representation for labels; even less interested in anything involving
> RDF collections. - cheers, BPA
> 
> Bradley P. Allen
> http://bradleypallen.org
> +1 310 951 4300
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 15 November 2009 14:09:47 UTC