W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > June 2007

Re: [SKOS] ISSUE-33 "SimpleExtension" proposal (was RE: [SKOS] "Lexicalization" or "term"?)

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:30:52 +0200
Message-ID: <467642BC.7090301@few.vu.nl>
To: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
CC: "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, public-esw-thes@w3.org

> Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:
>> Hi Antoine,
>> I just took a look at the latest revision of the "SimpleExtension" 
>> proposal [1] for ISSUE-33. Interesting :)
>> Under this proposal, is there a bijection [2] between the extension 
>> of skos:Label and the set of RDF plain literals?
>> In other words, is there only one skos:Label for every plain literal, 
>> and vice versa?
>> Or, under this proposal, is there only a surjection [3] between the 
>> extension of skos:Label and the set of RDF plain literals
>> In other words, is there only one plain literal for every skos:Label, 
>> but one or more skos:Label for every plain literal?
>> This is absolutely crucial to exploring the consequences of the 
>> proposal. It is crucial because it bears on the conditions under 
>> which it makes practical and logical sense to assert the identity of 
>> two individuals of type skos:Label. This is the fundamental question 
>> that all proposals following the "terms-as-classes" pattern must 
>> address.
> Good point, should have made this clear. As skos:Label is just a 
> support class for the literal, my initial reaction was that a liretal 
> can only have one skos:Label attached to it  But this will not work in 
> practice, as literals may be used as terms in several vocabularies. 
> The only constraint that makes sense, I think, is to require that 
> literals only have one lLabel within one particular ConceptScheme. 
> Would this work?
> Guus
Hi Guus,

I really don't see why we would have for skos:Label a behaviour that 
would not allow to 'map' them to RDF literal.
We can have a same literal used in two different concept schemes as a 
label, let's say "bank" in an economy thesaurus and "bank" in a 
geography thesaurus, we don't consider them to be different literals, do 
Of course that raises the problem of how to contextualize potential 
relationship between labels. But as I tried to discuss it in [1] I think 
it's better to contextualize the relationship statement than the labels 



Received on Monday, 18 June 2007 08:31:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:43 UTC