- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:04:36 +0100
- To: Matthias Samwald <samwald@gmx.at>
- Cc: public-lod@w3.org
2009/2/23 Matthias Samwald <samwald@gmx.at>: > > >> I thought maybe SKOS [1] might have a suitable term, but alas not. The >> nearest I can find on a quick vocab skim (see [2]) are variations on >> 'label', but these are unsuitable not only because they're a bit weak, >> but also because their range is a literal. So +1 to making up a custom >> term. > > I would suggest using rdfs:seeAlso. I know, I know, usually people complain > that rdfs:seeAlso is too generic and demand that the community should come > up with some kind of "is quite similar to" predicate (this has been going on > for a while now and to my knowledge there are still no serious outcomes). true, swag:kindaLike is a good effort from 2001... [1] In > contrast, I would still prefer an established, generic property to something > that needs to be invented anew. rdfs:seeAlso is established (which also > means that people are more likely to re-use it then something you create in > your own little namespace), and it is also understood by some existing > applications. If all of us are starting to create our own "is quite similar > to" predicates, we are probably worse off than just using rdfs:seeAlso. The > semantics of these "is quite similar to" relations would probably be so > fuzzy that they would hardly be any more precise and useful than > rdfs:seeAlso, anyways. There does seem to be a considerably more precise correspondence between Cyc concepts and WordNet terms than rdfs:seeAlso describes. But taking your point of what existing applications understand, perhaps it might make sense to use rdfs:seeAlso in parallel with a custom term? Cheers, Danny. [1] http://infomesh.net/n3/2001-05-util.n3 -- http://danny.ayers.name
Received on Monday, 23 February 2009 19:05:13 UTC