RE: identity of SKOSXL labels

Hi Johan,

 

yes my bad I forgot to mention also the Appendix B of skos core, which I already read in the past, and in fact much of the doubts remain.

By re-reading that section, I may confirm that it is not guaranteed that, given two skosxl:Labels with the same literalForm, these are the same resource.

However, this “is not guaranteed” does not allow me to infer at all if SKOSXL enforces that C1 and C2 *should* have their own distinct labels, or if different modeling choices may allow the same URI to be used for labels with same literal form belonging to different concepts. The question is if, though reified, in a certain sense, the label remains “an appendix of the concept” or has (may have) a life of its own.

 

The request may seem fussy, but here are two scenarios for which it is important to determine the above:

 

1)      Compatibility with ontology-lexicon models, such as the one being developed here:  <http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/
Clearly, if same entries from a lexicon can be attached to more concepts, such models would be totally incompatible (not possible to specify rdfs:subClassOf rels) with skosxl:Label, in the case that skosxl:Labels have to be unique for each concept (i.e. even when others with the same literalForm already exist)

 

2)      SKOSXL development tools (such as  <http://vocbench.uniroma2.it/> http://vocbench.uniroma2.it/). Which sort of integrity checks (out of the owl reasoning) should be made while a skosxl:label is being created? Should different “modalities” be selectable, or is there a clear design rule/best practice?

 

Cheers,

 

Armando

 

From: Johan De Smedt [mailto:johan.de-smedt@tenforce.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2014 2:47 PM
To: 'Armando Stellato'; public-esw-thes@w3.org
Subject: RE: identity of SKOSXL labels

 

Hi Armando,

 

You may want to have a look at the SKOS reference - http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#xl

In particular Section B.2.4.1 (and less relevant for your issue: B.3.4.2)

 

Kind Regards,

 

Johan De Smedt 

Chief Technology Officer

 

mail:  <mailto:johan.de-smedt@tenforce.com> johan.de-smedt@tenforce.com

mobile: +32 477 475934



 

From: Armando Stellato [mailto:stellato75@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Armando Stellato
Sent: Thursday, 02 January, 2014 13:46
To: public-esw-thes@w3.org <mailto:public-esw-thes@w3.org> 
Subject: identity of SKOSXL labels

 

Dear all,

 

suppose in SKOS I have:

 

mythes:C1  skos:prefLabel “foo”

mythes:C2  skos:altLabel “foo”

 

In SKOSXL, should I have something like:

 

mythes:C1  skosxl:prefLabel mythes:foo

mythes:C2  skosxl:altLabel mythes:foo 

mythes:foo skosxl:literalForm “foo”

 

or like this? :

 

mythes:C1  skosxl:prefLabel mythes:foo_1

mythes:C2  skosxl:altLabel mythes:foo_2

mythes:foo_1 skosxl:literalForm “foo”

mythes:foo_2 skosxl:literalForm “foo”

 

 

in other words, is SKOSXL enforcing in any way that concepts which are expressed through same lexicals, should have in any case their own labels for them or, on the contrary, a same label should be used…or these is no indication about that?

 

In  <http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/skos-xl.html> http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/skos-xl.html there is no hint about that, but I almost recall that I read/heard somewhere that the skosxl reification of the labels is *not* meant to “unify” labels with identical literalForms under a same URI, thus the general rule is to use in any case a different label URI for each concept.

 

Could anyone shed some light on this? (and, in case, point me to the appropriate link if there is any…)

 

Cheers,

 

Armando

 

P.S: in the example, I put a prefLabel for C1  and an altLabel for C2, but assuming the specific properties being used do not affect the answer to my question, so it could be skos:***Label. Pls let me know if this matters anyhow.