W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > May 2007

Re: [hcls] Harmonization of labels, descriptions and definitions

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 02:11:23 -0400
Message-Id: <5ADCF2FF-1B78-4E29-A63A-2C774D0956BC@gmail.com>
Cc: William Bug <William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu>, public-semweb-lifesci hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>

I think there are two dimensions:

1) Allowing annotation properties to have subproperties so, e.g. that  
skos:prefLabel and skos:altLabel can be subproperties of rdfs:label.
Mostly this is addressed by punning in 1.1 but there are still  
annotation property leftovers like rdfs:label and rdfs:comment or any  
other property where one doesn't want to make a commitment as to  
whether they are datatype or object.

2) Some sort of easy tagging mechanism for labels - perhaps something  
along the lines of the language tags. The case is that one ontology  
is used by a variety of communities (proteomics, flow cytometry,  
enzymology) each of which has preferred labels for some of the terms,  
and it would be nice to have some global switch to select which view  
you wanted to see.

btw, couldn't easily tell from the 1.1 spec whether one can add  
annotations to labels (like this tag thing).


On May 29, 2007, at 12:02 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> On May 29, 2007, at 4:58 AM, William Bug wrote:
>> This is exactly the point I've been making for over a year now  
>> regarding use of SKOS in biomedical ontology development, and it  
>> is why we use SKOS:prefLabel for all classes in BIRNLex (as well  
>> as having the redundant rdfs:label for interoperability  
>> purposes).  The "altLabel" provides a means not only to associate  
>> lexical variants but ultimately to create "namespace qualified"  
>> term sets or "views" of a single ontology with the terms tailored  
>> to the needs of a specific community.  There would need to be an  
>> expansion of annotation support in OWL to fully implement this,  
>> but SKOS can provide a means to standard that method in the  
>> lexical domain, once the required annotation capabilities have  
>> been added to OWL.
> [snip]
> Would you mind explaining exactly what you need from the annotation  
> capabilities? We have been discussing a fairly clean way to beef up  
> OWL 1.1 annotations and I'd be curious to know if it handled this  
> (important) case.
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2007 06:25:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:20:27 UTC