- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:17:33 +0100
- To: Jon Phipps <jphipps@madcreek.com>
- CC: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Hi Jon, > > >> >> My proposal is based on the assumption that the >> vast majority of thesauri will not have label >> relations, and therefore I wish not to have the >> burden of terms as classes on them. But I'm happy >> to be convinced my assumption is wrong. > > > Given the use cases and motivation cited in [2], most of the > relationships defined in the motivation seem to represent > relationships between concepts rather than between labels, so in that > case I'm inclined to agree. I'm quite puzzled here. For me things like synonymy and abbreviation are clearly at the lexical or terminological level, not at the conceptual one. If I have "car" and "automobile" I would like have just one concept for them, and not two that I would declare equivalent afterwards.... > > The one area where I think label relationships will very frequently be > required will be multilingual relationships between labels other than > prefLabel (assuming we let prefLabel keep its singularity). There > isn't a good way to declare relationships between multiple > translations of any label-related statement, but especially altLabels, > whose object is a literal. This might unfortunately also be true of > notes as well, but probably less of less importance. > > One other possible solution might be to recommend (not require) that > in the sole case of a need to maintain multilingual versions of a > concept and all of its literal properties, that concept schemes be > considered single language and provide for this purpose an > isTranslationOf relationship (or some other form of typed equivalence) > between concepts? This could do the trick, but I'm convinced we have enough multi lingual cases (and too small a number of explicit label translation cases) to say this would be counter-productive. All things considered, I actually would prefer to have to encode the translation links using whatever complex annotation alternative than to have to split concept schemes into more-or-less duplicate versions (and God knows I am not personnally fond of this annotation solution ;-) Cheers, Antoine > > I'm also thinking here of my daughter, the soon-to-graduate Spanish > major, who tells me that there are concepts in Spanish that can't be > expressed in English but for which there are English equivalents that > are considered to be effective translations. > > Anyway, just a thought. > > --Jon > > [2] > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLabels > > > --Jon > >> > On 2/27/07, Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl> wrote: >> >> >> >> ISSUE-26 [1] >> >> RelationshipsBetweenLabels >> >> >> >> Considering that: >> >> - representing lexical labels as classes would >> >> lead to an undesirable complication of SKOS in >> >> straightforward use cases for the application of SKOS, >> >> - representing relationships between labels is >> >> required in some use cases, and therefore an >> >> escape mechanism should preferably be available >> >> for such thesauri, >> >> >> >> I propose the WG opts for an amended version of >> >> the second solution proposed in [2]: >> >> >> >> RESOLUTION >> >> >> >> The WG resolves to add the following classes and >> >> properties to the SKOS specification [3]: >> >> >> >> - the class skos:LabelRelation >> >> - the properties skos:labelRelationSubject and >> >> skos:labelRelationObject with domain LabelRelation >> >> and range rdfs:literal >> >> >> >> In addition, the SKOS Guide should describe >> >> guidelines for SKOS users to define their label >> >> relations as specializations of LabelRelation and >> >> gives examples of its intended usage. The SKOS >> >> specification refrains for now to predefine >> >> specializations of LabelRelation. >> >> >> >> Contrary to the proposal in [2] the class >> >> LabelRelation is not defined as a subclass of >> >> skos:Annotation (which is in any case not yet part >> >> of the spec), as it is not an "annotation", but a >> >> lexical relationship. >> >> >> >> >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/26 >> >> [2] >> >> >> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLabels >> >> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-skos-core-spec/ >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Computer Science >> >> De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands >> >> T: +31 20 598 7739/7718; F: +31 84 712 1446 >> >> Home page: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/ >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> -- >> Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Computer Science >> De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands >> T: +31 20 598 7739/7718; F: +31 84 712 1446 >> Home page: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/ >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 28 February 2007 08:56:45 UTC