- From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:59:41 -0000
- To: "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: "SWD WG" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
> > [1] > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBet > weenLabels/Comparison > > PS: by the way thanks to Alistair for having updated the > SkosDesign page of the wiki. I hope we are not actually > abusing this page by posting our things there ;-) But of course not! I'm very glad to see it being used. > > > Hello Alistair, > > > > Everything amounts to choosing a name for the class representing > > terms/label/whatever that would not have too much apriori > > interpretation. That's why I didn't make a choice, hoping this was > > enough to raise the problem (notice that Label is not > perfect either, > > since it collides with the property rdfs:label). > > Perhaps we could for the moment try something like > "LabellingEntity", > > then. Each labelling entity would be required then to have one > > (unique) "preferred lexical value" (the equivalent of the prefLabel > > and altLabel, depending if we were at a preferred > LabellingEntity or > > an alternative one), and possible some alternative forms > (but here we > > don't care). This could be compatible with [2], I think. > > > > Also I had already read your [3]. And agreed with many > things there. > > The only objection I would raise is that, as designers of > SKOS, this > > WG has some freedom decide for the interpretation of the > constructs we > > introduce (provided of course it is not too > counter-intuitive). Just > > think of skos:Concept. SKOS contains a highly debatable entity, > > assigns it a highly ambiguous term, and restricts its > interpretation > > in a very specific way, which could be argued against by many (just > > think of skos:Concept vs. owl:Concept). And yet there is > interest for > > SKOS. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Antoine > > > > PS: this discussion aprat I will not fight till death for having > > "Term-as-class" in SKOS. But I would like any refusal to be further > > discussed. On the SKOS list there were arguments against > it, arguments > > for it (I have tried to note them, I'll push them to the > wiki soon, I > > hope), but the final decision was made in a way that I could not > > really keep track of, at least browsing the mailing list... > > > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Just a quick note to add to the record that the fundamental > >> difficulty with the "Term-as-Class" approach is agreeing on the > >> semantics, and especially the identity conditions, for the > members of > >> the suggested new class. > >> > >> In my experience, while some people may appear to hold > superficially > >> similar notions of what a "Term" is, when you try to express those > >> notions formally you can arive at some interesting contradictions. > >> > >> For example, in [1] Antoine essentially states that a > "Term" cannot > >> have more than one lexical value. However, others would > disagree with > >> this condition, and would consider e.g. "organisation" and > >> "organization" to be "variant forms" of the same "Term" > (this is the > >> FAO/AGROVOC approach, see [2]). I don't mean to suggest > that either > >> is "correct", I just want to demonstrate that these two points of > >> view are actually irreconcilable. > >> > >> A related problem is, if two "Terms" have the same lexical > value, are > >> they therefore the same "Term"? Or can two "Terms" have the same > >> lexical values, but still be different entities? > >> > >> It's worth noting also that, in the DCMI community, "Term" > can mean > >> property or class or concept. i.e. nothing at all to do > with lexical > >> values. > >> > >> A while ago I tried to write up a discussion of how > different points > >> of view on what a "Term" is lead to drastically different (and > >> inconsistent) logical definitions - it's at [3], not very > clear but > >> the examples might help. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Al. > >> > >> > >> [1] > >> > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLab > >> els?action=recall&rev=6 > >> > >> [2] > http://owl-workshop.man.ac.uk/acceptedPosition/submission_31.pdf > >> [3] http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/blogs/alistair/archives/25 > >> > >> Antoine Isaac wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> I have written on > >>> > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLa > >>> bels a first attempt regarding the action: > >>> > >>>> [PENDING] ACTION: Antoine to capture the issue on capturing > >>>> relationships between labels [recorded in > >>>> [50]http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action04] > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Perhaps the most important, concerning the action itself, is the > >>> 'motivation' part that gives example of such links between labels. > >>> The 'solutions' part goes into discussion on ways to solve the > >>> issue, inspired by the material found via [1] and the > page Alistair > >>> recently wrote about Annotation Patterns [2]. > >>> Any further attempt to go into a solution in terms of SKOS model > >>> shall be worked out in cooperation with the issue on > annotations on > >>> labels, I think. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Antoine > >>> > >>> [1] > >>> > http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/proposals.html#thesaurusRepresen > >>> tation-11 > >>> > >>> [2] > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/AnnotationPatterns > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >
Received on Friday, 23 February 2007 16:00:00 UTC