- From: Quentin Reul <qreul@csd.abdn.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 09:30:11 +0100
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- CC: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Hi Antoine, By ambiguity I mean terms that have multiple sense. For example, the term group either means: 1. any number of entities (members) considered as a unit. 2. (chemistry) two or more atoms bound together as a single unit and forming part of a molecule. 3. a set that is closed, associative, has an identity element and every element has an inverse. Obviously, a skos concept can be created for each one with and ID associated. However, querying the thesaurus might pose problems as the user could have 3 concepts when querying for prefLabel or altLabel. Regards, Quentin Antoine Isaac wrote: > Hi Quentin, > > I won't answer on transitivity, I think I agree with Sean. > For the second point your feedback is much appreciated! Thanks for the > reading and reacting effort. > And for the last point, if by "ambiguity" you mean "mapping", then yes, > we will work on that. > > Cheers, > > Antoine > >> Hi Antoine, >> >> The goal of SKOS is to share knowledge organisation, such as thesauri >> over the web. Imagine that a user defines a thesaurus containing only >> skos:broader relations between skos:Concept. If skos:broader and >> skos:narrower are not transitive, a user x who wants to use this >> thesaurus to find all narrower concepts of a concept will have to add >> the relation to every concept in the thesaurus. Hence, transitivity >> between these relations enable a better sharing among user. >> >> Looking at [1], I realised that my question is already covered. I have >> reviewed the different solutions proposed. I believe that solution 4 >> (mixing 1 and 2), despite is cons, would be most appropriate. SKOS >> relations such as skos:definition and skos:altLabel offer more >> information about the concept described whereas skos:broader and >> skos:narrower describes relations between terms (in my view anyway). >> Furthermore, FOAF and Dublin Core are sometimes used in OWL ontologies >> to add information about concept or the ontology itself. >> >> Lastly, I was wondering if the group was planning on addressing the >> question of ambiguity between terms. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Quentin >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptSemantics >> >> Antoine Isaac wrote: >>> Hi Quentin, >>>> >>>> I understood that skos:narrower and skos:broader are inverses. And I >>>> guess my question is actually going to be covered as part of the f2f >>>> in Amsterdam [1] in a few weeks time. My personal opinion is that >>>> these should be transitive in a similar manner to rdfs:subClass in >>>> OWL especially if users want to be able to get information through >>>> inference. >>> >>> Do you have a specific application which requires this? For the >>> moment my personal opinion is rather not enthousiastic about >>> transitivity, and it's grounded in some practical concerns. I guess >>> other workgroup member will come with strong arguments for >>> transitivity, but the more practical cases we can discuss, the better... >>> >>>> >>>> Another question that comes to mind is whether SKOS is intended to >>>> be used as stand-alone or within an ontology. As part of the project >>>> I work on, we have used SKOS properties such as skos:definition to >>>> define concept label in OWL ontologies. But I also can see some >>>> applications where SKOS can be used to represent thesaurus on its own. >>> >>> Your sentence is unclear: do my scribblings in [1] cover this problem? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Antoine >>> >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptSemantics >>>> >>>> >>>> Sean Bechhofer wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 24 Sep 2007, at 11:41, Quentin Reul wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I have looked at different aspects of SKOS and I have got a few >>>>>> questions as a result: >>>>>> >>>>>> First of all, I was wondering if there was any reasoner available >>>>>> to create a thesaurus tree and find out all the different terms >>>>>> that are "broader/narrower" for a given term. >>>>>> >>>>>> My understanding is that the "broader/narrower" relationship is >>>>>> transitive, i.e. if the user adds a term has being broader, this >>>>>> term would have the previous term as narrower without having to >>>>>> add the statement to the second term. >>>>> >>>>> Broader/narrower are intended to be *inverses*, which I think is >>>>> what you mean here. >>>>> >>>>> The transitivity of broader/narrower is one of the topics that's up >>>>> for discussion at the F2F. See "Semantic Relation Properties" in [1]. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Sean >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/AmsterdamAgenda >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Sean Bechhofer >>>>> School of Computer Science >>>>> University of Manchester >>>>> sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk >>>>> http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer >>>>> >>>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> >>>> Quentin H. Reul >>>> Computing Science >>>> University of Aberdeen >>>> >>>> +44 (0)1224 27 *4485* >>>> qreul@csd.abdn.ac.uk >>>> http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~qreul >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quentin H. Reul Computing Science University of Aberdeen +44 (0)1224 27 *4485* qreul@csd.abdn.ac.uk http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~qreul
Received on Monday, 1 October 2007 08:30:40 UTC