RE: SKOS properties

Sue Ellen,
Yes, I can see that treating antonyms as synonyms would not suit a
terminology application at all. And even for thesaurus applications, it
only works for *some* antonyms in *some* contexts. (For example the
black/white and war/peace cases that have been mentioned look most
unlikely candidates.) For a thesaurus manager, however, it is nice to be
able to apply this treatment in selected cases. Can/should  SKOS try to
meet all needs of all user groups?
cheers
Stella

*****************************************************
Stella Dextre Clarke
Information Consultant
Luke House, West Hendred, Wantage, Oxon, OX12 8RR, UK
Tel: 01235-833-298
Fax: 01235-863-298
SDClarke@LukeHouse.demon.co.uk
*****************************************************



-----Original Message-----
From: Sue Ellen Wright [mailto:sellenwright@gmail.com] 
Sent: 26 April 2007 15:31
To: Stella Dextre Clarke
Cc: Quentin Reul; SWD Working Group; public-esw-thes@w3.org
Subject: Re: SKOS properties


Hi, All,
As a terminologist, the notion of adding antonyms as
equivalents/synonyms strikes me as really undesirable. In an
ontology-like environment it would really be problematic. By the same
token, it is hard to classify antonym relations -- this has long been a
subject of debate in terminology/lexicography circles. I rather like the
idea of "disjointwith" together with a scope note. Especially in
multilingual concept management, knowing the antonym is often a real
clue to the disambiguation of the concept associated with a term. 
Bye for now
Sue Ellen

 
On 4/26/07, Stella Dextre Clarke <sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk> wrote:


You may like to know that ISO 2788 and BS 8723 both allow you to admit
antonyms as though they were equivalents (with relationship tagged
USE/UF) if appropriate. For example, in my own thesaurus I have an entry
"Inconsistency of indexing USE Indexing consistency" because both of
these terms are actually referring to the same underlying concept. (A
scope note might describe it  as "the degree of  consistency or
inconsistency encountered in indexing".) If you want to be more precise,
you could set it up as a special type of equivalence relationship. 
 
SKOS could choose to handle antonyms the same way, if it wishes. (*some*
antonyms, I should stress - not all examples would be suitable for this
treatment.) In an ontology, you might prefer the relationships to be
more specific. 
 
Cheers
Stella
 
*****************************************************
Stella Dextre Clarke
Information Consultant
Luke House, West Hendred, Wantage, Oxon, OX12 8RR, UK
Tel: 01235-833-298
Fax: 01235-863-298
SDClarke@LukeHouse.demon.co.uk
***************************************************** 




-----Original Message-----
From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Quentin Reul 
Sent: 26 April 2007 12:08
To: SWD Working Group
Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Subject: SKOS properties


Hi all,
I was looking at the properties available as part of SKOS and realized
that there wasn't any properties to represent antonyms. However, these
are sometimes useful and present in some thesauri such as WordNet. Would
owl:disjointWith be sufficient to represent antonyms?
Thanks,
Quentin


-- 

  _____  


Quentin H. Reul
Computing Science
University of Aberdeen

+44 (0)1224 27 4485
qreul@csd.abdn.ac.uk
http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~qreul





-- 
Sue Ellen Wright
Institute for Applied Linguistics
Kent State University
Kent OH 44242 USA
sellenwright@gmail.com
swright@kent.edu
sewright@neo.rr.com