- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:30:52 +0200
- 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 we? 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 themselves. Cheers, Antoine http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0064.html
Received on Monday, 18 June 2007 08:31:00 UTC