Re: Failing to meet integrity constraint S14 when terminology evolves

Hi Hong!

I don't quite understand what the problem is in updating the prefLabel 
once more in 2014, and making the old labels altLabels. I think it is 
common practice with thesauri to have only one prefLabel per concept (as 
is formalized in SKOS S14), and if the prefLabel has to change, then the 
old label can be preserved as an altLabel.

Skosify also does this when it detects S14 violations. One label will be 
kept as prefLabel (the policy can be selected) and the rest will be 
converted to altLabels. See http://code.google.com/p/skosify/wiki/Validation

-Osma

On 13/11/13 00:22, Hong Sun wrote:
> Thanks Johan!
>
> What I considered as a problem is that as the terminology is still
> evolving, the label of a code may change in future.
>
> For example, when the label in 2013 is "Wangenabszess", it is correct to
> formalize it as:
>
> icd10gm:K12.23 a skos:concept;
>          skos:prefLabel "Wangenabszess"@de;
>          skos:altLabel "Wangenabszeß"@de.
>
> But if the label is changed in future, e.g. in case it is changed as
> "Wangenabszess 2014" in the 2014 version, then I do not know what should
> I do,
>
> I would consider it as inappropriate to update the concept as
>
> icd10gm:K12.23 a skos:concept;
>          skos:prefLabel "Wangenabszess 2014"@de;
>          skos:altLabel "Wangenabszess"@de;
>          skos:altLabel "Wangenabszeß"@de.
>
> I consider this might be a common problem in using SKOS to formalize an
> evolving terminology. Do you have any suggestion?
>
> Kind regards,
> Hong
>
>
> -----"Johan De Smedt" <johan.de-smedt@tenforce.com> &#25776;&#20889;:-----
>   Hong Sun/AXIFX/AGFA@AGFA, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
>   "Johan De Smedt" <johan.de-smedt@tenforce.com>
>   2013/11/12 下午09:57
>   RE: Failing to meet integrity constraint S14 when terminology evolves
>
> Hi Hong Sun,
>
> Managing the labels to get:
>
> icd10gm:K12.23 a skos:concept;
>          skos:prefLabel "Wangenabszess"@de;
>          skos:altLabel "Wangenabszeß"@de.
>
> Is a good approach.
>
> It is not clear what the problem is with this approach.
>
> Is the publication of  a version (2014) not the “formalized terminology”?
>
> Is this a SKOS problem or is the a publishing flow problem?
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> *Johan De Smedt *
>
> *From:*Hong Sun [mailto:hong.sun@agfa.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 12 November, 2013 18:13
> *To:* public-esw-thes@w3.org
> *Subject:* Failing to meet integrity constraint S14 when terminology evolves
>
> Dear All,
>
> I have a problem in assigning labels to SKOS concepts within an evolving
> terminology, and am therefore looking for your opinions.
>
> In the ICD 10 coding system, Germany version, the text assigned to a
> code changes between different versions, e.g.
> in ICD10GM 2004, the code K12.23 has a label:Wangenabszeß
> in ICD10GM 2013, the code K12.23 has a label:Wangenabszess
>
> Before realizing the problem, I formalized the code as SKOS concept:
> icd10gm:K12.23 a skos:concept;
>          skos:prefLabel "Wangenabszeß"@de.
> However, it ends up with
> icd10gm:K12.23 a skos:concept;
>          skos:prefLabel "Wangenabszeß"@de;
>          skos:prefLabel "Wangenabszess"@de.
> which is not consistent with the integrity constraint S14.
>
> As the ICD 10 GM publish a new version each year, and most of the labels
> are stable, it also seems to be overkill to create a concept for each
> version, e.g.
> icd10gm2004:K12.23 a skos:concept;
>          skos:prefLabel "Wangenabszeß"@de.
> and
> icd10gm2013:K12.23 a skos:concept;
>          skos:prefLabel "Wangenabszess"@de.
>
> I also consider to take the labels from the latest version as prefLabel,
> and those from an older version as altLabel, e.g.
> icd10gm:K12.23 a skos:concept;
>          skos:prefLabel "Wangenabszess"@de;
>          skos:altLabel "Wangenabszeß"@de.
>
> The problem for this approach is that in case the code changes in later
> versions(e.g. v2014), then the skos:prefLabel needs to be updated again.
> If the formalized terminology is already published, then such request to
> update will be a problem.
>
> I currently planed to formalize the concept as below:
> icd10gm:K12.23 a skos:concept;
>          rdfs:label "Wangenabszess"@de;
>          rdfs:label "Wangenabszeß"@de.
>
> Still not very satisfied with this solution yet. Is there any better
> solution with other SKOS properties? Meanwhile, is there a general
> principle/guideline for SKOS in formalizing (the labels) of an evolving
> terminology? Thanks!
>
> Kind Regards,
> *
> Hong Sun | Agfa HealthCare*
> Researcher | HE/Advanced Clinical Applications Research
> T  +32 3444 8108
>


-- 
Osma Suominen
D.Sc. (Tech), Information Systems Specialist
National Library of Finland
P.O. Box 26 (Teollisuuskatu 23)
00014 HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO
Tel. +358 50 3199529
osma.suominen@helsinki.fi
http://www.nationallibrary.fi

Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2013 07:37:27 UTC