Re: [SKOS] ISSUE-26: "Minimal Label Relation" Proposal

Hi Alistair,

>  
>
>   
>> By the way this 'counting' does not take into account the 
>> weight of the seeLabelRelation. To me, you could remove it, 
>> this would have the benefit of not anchoring your link to one 
>> concept exclusively. This anchoring can have some advantages, 
>> but it also seems very restrictive. 
>> If you were to have 2 labels linked that belong to different 
>> concepts (e.g. if your label relationship is 'antonym') would 
>> you attach the labelRelation instance to both concepts?
>>     
>
> The proposal has deliberately weak semantics for skos:seeLabelRelation. There is no requirement to use it all. There are no constraints its cardinality in either direction. Also (from [4]):
>
> "...there does not necessarily have to be any correspondance between the lexical labels of a resource, and the labels involved in a label relation, to which the resource is related via the skos:seeLabelRelation property"
>
>   
I had indeed understood this. But it was not very explicit from the 
examples alone, and I wanted to have confirmation of what would happen 
in the antonymy case.

>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Here is an alternative proposal for resolution of ISSUE-26 
>>>       
>>>
>>> I've called this proposal "Minimal Label Relation" because 
>>>       
>> it is very similar to Guus' "LabelRelation" proposal, but 
>> with a bit less ontological commitment.
>>     
>>>   
>>>       
>> Why?
>>     
>
> Note I am referring to Guus' "LabelRelation" proposal [1], not Guus' "Simple Extension" proposal [3].
>> Antoher question, purely formal: is this new proposal of 
>> yours deprecating the more general proposal you launched in [2]?
>>     
>
> I prefer the "Minimal Label Relation" proposal [4] to the "LabelAnnotation" proposal [2].
>
> So many proposal names :)

Argh. So if I would try to clarify the information found at the top of 
[0] (yes, zero ;-) then your "minmal label relation" [4] competes with 
your previous "Label Annotation" [2] and Guus' "Label Relation" [1]. And 
then the best of the three should be compared to the "Simple extension" 
by Guus [4] which proposes a less systematic approach to the 
Term-as-class option

Notice that all the proposals relying on sort of reification of the 
label link face the important problem raised by Jon in [5]: asserting 
links between labels should somehow be contextualized, and I'm not sure 
you could do with so little semantics for your seeLabelRelation 
property. Indeed, since attaching a LabelRelation to a concept is not 
optimal as I've tried to show, I would propose to contextualize it by 
attaching it to the ConceptScheme instance itself...

Notice also that this contextualization issue may also occur for the 
term-as-class part of Guus' "Simple Extension" [3]. Perhaps a better way 
is just to ignore this problem for now, and to postpone it till we solve 
the related SemanticRelationshipContainment issue [6]. I really don't 
like how all these issues are related...

Cheers,

Antoine

[0] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLabels/
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Feb/0195.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Mar/0092.html
[3] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLabels/ProposalThree
[4] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLabels/ProposalFour
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Feb/0187.html
[6] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/36

Received on Friday, 15 June 2007 14:11:11 UTC