- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 17:10:53 +0200
- To: "Sini, Margherita (KCEW)" <Margherita.Sini@fao.org>
- CC: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
Hi Margherita, Thank you very much for your feedback! this is very much appreciated, and useful. > Dear Antoine and Alistar, > > Thank you for this work which we think is very useful! Capturing > relationships between labels is what we are try to represent since some time. > > Regarding the possible modelling approaches you mention in [4] here my > comments: > > - I like First solution: Term-as-class. This will allow to create also any > other type of properties between terms. It also allow to attache terms to the > corresponding concept. > > - Second solution: I personally do not like this too much. I think this will > duplicate the info (labels are written twice) > > - Third solution: keeping standard SKOS and Term-as-class solutions > co-existing... not yet clear > Basically this third solution [3] would allow for people to opt for the first solution (term-as-class) or the sandard (label as literal) one. In whatever case, the proposal says how to convert from term-as-class representation to standard, and vice versa, so as to be compatible with the tools that could be produced following either approach. Cheers, Antoine [3] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLabels/ProposalThree [4] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLabels > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of Antoine Isaac > Sent: 15 June 2007 16:11 > To: Miles, AJ (Alistair) > Cc: SWD WG; public-esw-thes@w3.org > Subject: 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/Prop > osalThree > [4] > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLabels/Prop > osalFour > [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 Sunday, 24 June 2007 15:27:12 UTC