RE: Linking to SKOS

Dear all,

 

Sorry for being off for a while, been out for a conference and project meeting in a row…

 

1) SKOS says: " The class skosxl:Label is a special class of lexical entities." (see  <http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#xl-Label> http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#xl-Label). The particularity is that skosxl:Labels have a only 1 restriction on "literalForm", i.e. there is exactly one literal form for skosxl:Labels. Clearly, such a restriction is compatible with our model. Nevertheless, we could state that "skosxl:Label" is a subClassOf ontolex:LexicalEntry. It conforms to the first sentence at http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#xl-Label and documents the fact that skosxl:Labels are very specific kinds of lexical entities (entries) that make a number of assumptions that our more general class "LexicalEntry" does not make. As we say that skosxl:Label is a SubClass we do not have any implications and there are no implications from our side. The implication is more on the side of the people who use both the SKOS and the ontolex vocabulary. But the effect is nice I think, i.e. all skosxl:Labels become ontolex:LexicalEntries. In practice, we could also write a converter from SKOS to ontolex that converts every Label into exactly one LexicalEntry. Not ideal, but useful to create a bridge between both models. 

You mean ontolex:Form, right? A lexical entry can have multiple forms so is not compatible with skosxl:Label (I believe this was already discussed in a previous telco). 

 

Yep, John you are right, though Philipp was telling to do the contrary. In this way any of the constraints of sksoxl:Label are not broken by us. All skosxl:Labels become ontolex:LexicalEntries, not the contrary.

My two cents here:

1)      I am not sure it is good practice to put an element from another vocabulary as subject of an axiom in your vocabulary. Could anyone confirm this?

a.       Though this is at RDF level, maybe in OWL2 we can mention subClassOf^-1 without need of using skosxl:Label as subject?

 

2)      If we did, instead:
ontolex:LexicalEntry rdfs:subClassOf  skosxl:Label
still, the props used are different, so there’s, with just this axiom, no big incompatibility (neither any real binding though ;-) ). So, moving to the props, couldn’t we just say that the ontolex:writtenRep of the unique canonicalform of the LexicalEntry represents the literalForm of an skosxl:Label? Skosxl:Label can have only one literalForm, but nothing prevents to have other elements (such as the other forms) attached to it.

Btw, I too tend towards:

ontolex:Form rdfs:subClassOf  skosxl:Label 

as we all suggested last time, though here the kind of reuse is less clear…



3)      Just a note; there is another issue: I don’t’ find it on the SKOSXL specs (and for sure it is not a formal constraint), but I remember that if in our domain we have two concepts with the same label, say “foo”, in SKOSXL we should do, in any case:

:c1 skosxl:xxxLabel :aLabel1
:aLabel1 skosxl:literalForm “foo” 
:c2 skosxl:xxxLabel :aLabel2
:aLabel2 skosxl:literalForm “foo” 

                That is, necessarily having a different reified label even though the two literal forms are the same. I’m not sure we want something like that in our world




Cheers,

 

Armando