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

Re: SKOS/ synonym provenance (ISSUE-27 AnnotationOnLabel)

From: Quentin Reul <qreul@csd.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:51:14 +0000
Message-ID: <4742E652.2060203@csd.abdn.ac.uk>
To: Jon Phipps <jphipps@madcreek.com>
CC: public-swd-wg@w3.org

Hi Jon,

The first solution in [1] seems to consider skos:Term and skos:Label as 
equivalent. Therefore, I was wondering if the addition of 
skos:relatedLabel allowing different relations between labels to be 
defined (e.g. abbreviation, acronym) would not be sufficient.

Cheers,

Quentin

[1]http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBetweenLabels

Jon Phipps wrote:
> 
> Al,
> 
> I'd like to suggest in the light of further discussion that we 
> reconsider Guus's Simple Extension Proposal[1]. Perhaps if we were able 
> to declare skos:prefLabel as having an owl:equivalentProperty 
> relationship to the rdfs:label property of a skos prefTerm, then this 
> would allow us to effectively join a 'term' graph to a concept by 
> asserting a typed relationship without impacting the current semantics 
> of prefLabel. I think this might be far more effective than simply 
> allowing a resource to be the object of a skos:label property.
> 
> I believe that Antoine had drawn this pattern on a notepad at the f2f 
> but it didn't provoke much discussion. As I recall the main objections 
> to Guus's proposal had to do with problems with the overloading of 
> 'term' and the fact that it's subject to rather broad interpretation. 
> Perhaps rather than simply rejecting the proposal, we could see if we 
> can't adjust the naming to be more acceptable wrt to the apparent 
> ambiguity of the term 'term' -- prefLexicalTerm perhaps.
> 
> Personally I'm far more comfortable allowing the joining of a term to a 
> concept to both maintain and allow relationships between terms that 
> can't be effectively expressed with the more generalizable conceptual 
> relationships supported by skos than I am with the currently supported 
> solution. It seems to me that there are far too many instances where 
> publishing a concept using skos involves enough of a loss of useful data 
> that it would present a barrier to acceptance of skos.
> 
> --Jon
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007May/0057.html
> 
> On Nov 20, 2007, at 7:40 AM, Miles, AJ ((Alistair)) wrote:
> 
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I just wanted to connect this discussion up with ISSUE-27 
>> AnnotationOnLabel [1] -- we should bring that issue up the agenda and 
>> discuss asap.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Al.
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/27
>>
>> -- 
>> Alistair Miles
>> Research Associate
>> Science and Technology Facilities Council
>> Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
>> Harwell Science and Innovation Campus
>> Didcot
>> Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
>> United Kingdom
>> Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
>> Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
>> Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org
>>> [mailto:public-swd-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Antoine Isaac
>>> Sent: 19 November 2007 22:10
>>> To: Daniel Rubin
>>> Cc: public-swd-wg@w3.org; Alan Ruttenberg
>>> Subject: Re: SKOS/ synonym provenance
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Daniel, Alan,
>>>
>>> You are actually making points in favor of this many-to-one
>>> option, which will be interesting to remind if we go for the
>>> label-as-resource option (which, I remind you, is not the
>>> current choice of the WG!)
>>>
>>> I wonder however how your specific case can fit the SKOS
>>> world: what you call synonym here could be a case of
>>> skos:altLabel between two concepts in different communities
>>> and the "study" label, couldn't it?
>>> Also, I don't think SKOS should propose means to represent
>>> provenance from entities different from concept schemes. Your
>>> "communities" seem a very specific requirement. And the
>>> problem is difficult enough for concept schemes, I'd say :-(
>>>
>>> But at least we can try to have a basis that fits your
>>> representation needs in a reasonable way. It would therefore
>>> help if you could say whether you prefer represent your
>>> information using label-as-resources or Alistair's n-ary
>>> patterns for labels-as-literals [2]. Every user's advice is
>>> welcome on this point.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Antoine
>>>
>>> [2]
>>> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBet
>>> weenLabels/ProposalFour
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>> Alan Ruttenberg is interested ability of SKOS to support
>>> associating
>>>> information with synonyms, such as provenance, or recording the
>>>> community that uses the term. He had some comments he wanted me to
>>>> share with SWD on our issue called Label Relations under active
>>>> discussion [1]. Please see his comments below.
>>>>
>>>> Daniel
>>>>
>>>> [1] http:// isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/public/skos/2007/10/f2f/label-
>>>> relations.html
>>>>
>>>> ______________
>>>>
>>>>> I think we would say that we need the many to one case, as if the
>>>>> literal was inverse functional we would not be able to
>>> have the same
>>>>> word be a synonym for different terms for different communities.
>>>>>
>>>>> So take the case of the term "study".  In the clinical trial
>>>>> community this would be a synonym for ClinicalTrial, but in the
>>>>> Nutrigenomics community it is a synonym for some portion of a
>>>>> clinical investigation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore our case resembles the cow case, but is more clearly
>>>>> motivated:
>>>>>
>>>>> ex1:cow rdf:type skos:Label;
>>>>>   skos:plainLiteralValue "cow"@en;
>>>>>   dcterms:created "2007-09-09".
>>>>>
>>>>> ex2:cow rdf:type skos:Label;
>>>>>   skos:plainLiteralValue "cow"@en;
>>>>>   dcterms:created "1903-05-05".
>>>>>
>>>>> instead
>>>>>
>>>>> obi:study_trial rdf:type skos:Label;
>>>>>   skos:plainLiteralValue "study"@en;
>>>>>   obi:forCommunity obi:ClinicalCommunity.
>>>>>
>>>>> obi:study_nutri rdf:type skos:Label;
>>>>>   skos:plainLiteralValue "study"@en;
>>>>>   obi:forCommunity obi:NutrigenomicsCommunity.
>>>>>
>>>>> As another example, consider the recording of the association of
>>>>> lexical terms with concepts that would be derived from text mining.
>>>>> In that case we would like to record the fact that the synonym is
>>>>> sanctioned by a particular publication. Thus the skos:Label is the
>>>>> lexical form by which the entity is cited in the paper.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please pass this back to the SWD, and feel free to follow
>>> up or have
>>>>> someone else from SWD follow up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Alan
>>>>>
>>>>> -Alan
>>>>>
>>>>>> At 09:08 PM 11/14/2007, you wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We had discussed the issue of associating information with
>>>>>>> synonyms, such as provenance, or recording the community
>>> that uses the term.
>>>>>>> You mentioned that you would talk to the SWD group about whether
>>>>>>> this as acknowledged as a requirement for SKOS  and if
>>> not, whether
>>>>>>> it could be.  I'm wondering whether you got to that, and
>>> if so what
>>>>>>> the response was.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
******************************************
* Quentin H. Reul                        *
* PhD Research Student                   *
* Department of Computing Science        *
* University of Aberdeen, King's College *
* Room 238 in the Meston Building        *
* ABERDEEN AB24 3UE                      *
* Phone: +44 (0)1224 27 4485             *
* http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~qreul       *
******************************************
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 13:51:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:51 UTC