RE: Comments on iso-thes-25964.owl

Hi Johan, thanks for the comprehensive reply!

 

* > 3 different ways of representing "text with provenance": skosxl:Label for concept labels, typeless node+rdf:value for notes, and rdfs:label+owl:Axiom for array and group labels

[JDS:>] The schema reflects the ISO WG consensus, clearly distinguishing between both.  I agree with the argumentation on the added complexity for making provenance statements in different ways for rdfs:label and for the skosxl:Label. 

In order not to conflict with ISO 25964 and to find [JDS2:>] a common provenance statement mechanism we can consider a “NodeLabel” sub class of xl:Label.  What do you think?

 

If this will keep ISO happy J 

But what property will lead to NodeLabel? PLEASE use xl:prefLabel / xl:altLabel.

Here is an AAT example of a Guide Term having an altLabel (in Dutch):

http://www.getty.edu/vow/AATFullDisplay?find=300198841 <http://www.getty.edu/vow/AATFullDisplay?find=300198841&logic=AND&note=&subjectid=300078072> &logic=AND&note=&subjectid=300078072

If the ISO thinks nodes can’t have multiple labels, then it is wrong.

 

While we’re on the topic of “text with provenance”, may I ask which pattern is better for a Note:

- type-less node with rdf:value (as documented in SKOS “advanced documentation”), or

- xl:Label with xl:literalForm?

I’m a bit uneasy about type-less nodes.

 

add a subGroupTransitive/superGroupTransitive which are transitive closures of the ConceptGroup

 

Agreed

 

The concepts in the array are siblings though do not necessarily have the superOrdinateConcept as a parent.  Examples are given in ISO 25964 part 1…

See section 11 of ISO 25964 (Facet Analysis) and figure 4…

 

Ok, what I really need is a simple “operational” definition of when to use Array and when to use Group. Can such definition fit in 2 paragraphs?

 

in case the concepts in an array are actually narrower terms of a/the superOrdinateConcept of that array, the an explicit broader/narrower relationship must be stated

 

That’s good enough 

 

* Better define the domain and range of iso:superOrdinate (don't just rely on owl:inverseOf)

[JDS:>] This is implicit by inference on the owl model.  I do not think there is a need to do it.

 

I’m afraid that is not true. AFAIK the only OWL rules for inverseOf are prp_inv1 and prp_inv2 that allow you to infer property instances. That does not let you make any conclusions about domain and range

 

* “child adoption” is NOT a label of either concept "children" nor "adoption": it's the label of a compound pre-coordinated concept (narrower than both "children" and "adoption")

[JDS:>] Let’s take the drawing (with color legend and build-up) and the ISO UML diagram to focus the discussion

 

You didn’t need to redo the animation from your presentation in this email. I understand what’s going on, but it still doesn’t answer my concern: “child adoption” is NOT a label for “child”! Any model that leads you to that conclusion is wrong.

 

if a thesaurus would include “adopted children” as a concept, this indeed would make a different instantiation.

However, to illustrate the model for compound relationship, the example must be read as there is no “adopted children” concept (or preferred term).

 

It doesn’t matter whether the thesaurus includes such pre-coordinated concept. The concept “adoption AND children” does exist in an abstract sense (it’s the precoordination of the two indicated concepts). “Child adoption” is a label for it, not for any of the atoms.

 

[JDS:>] iso-thes:PreferredLabel is removed from the final version

 

I’m glad!

 

[JDS:>] The difference between main term and modifiers indeed is not modeled, neither in the ISO 25964 nor in the owl scheme made for it.

If it is needed, this would require an extension.

 

Why not add such extension (subproperty) to owl, as a best practice guideline?

 

[JDS:>] my-understanding: skos:broaderTransitive is the transitive closure of skos:broader. I understand from the discussion of Jutta and Detlev that:

- BTG and BTP should be declared as transitive sub-properties of skos:broader

- BTI should be declared as sub-property of skos:broader, but NOT as transitive.

 

I’m afraid this won’t work.

- broader is non-transitive (it’s a step relation), so it cant have transitive subprops.

- broaderTransitive is defined as a transitive superprop of broader. 

  Instead, it would need to be redefined as OR (superprop) of broaderGenericTransitive and broaderPartitiveTransitive 

 

Cheers! V