Re: [SKOS] SKOS-XL & label relations

Alistair, Antoine,

Sorry for being so late in catching up with the XL discussion.

I have a few remarks (and really hope this does not destroy the nice 
consensus that i arising):

1. I think the XL solution is really neat, although I would prefer, like 
Antoine, to have the "binary XL" relation. In fact, the binary XL 
approach (having a different namespace for the label-as-resource 
representation) removes all the disadvantages of the original Proposal 2 
[1]. It even preserves DL compatibility, as skos:prefLabel is now a 
DatatypeProperty and skos-xl:prefLabel is an ObjectProperty. In summary: 
XL appears to be the "the egg of Columbus" (not sure this expression 
translates to English).

2. Was the assumption that XL would not be part of the Reference (and 
therefore not of the official Rec)? I think it should, as label 
relations feature so prominently in our use cases. But maybe I missed 
other good reasons.

3. One small point: do we really need to introduce xl:literalForm? I 
would prefer to use rdfs:label, unless there is a good reason to have a 
specific SKOS variant.


Guus

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


> From: Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:14:00 +0100
> To: "'SWD WG'" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
> Message-ID: <005101c89e4a$8ea2c6a0$abe853e0$@miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Considering Antoine's comments at [1], it seems there are three alternate
> patterns for representing relations between lexical entities. Here, I call
> these three patterns "n-ary literal relations", "binary (XL) label
> relations" and "n-ary (XL) label relations". Currently, the SKOS Reference
> provides support for the first, my original "XL" sketch [2] supported the
> third, and nothing supported the second.
> 
> Given the amount of implementation experience, it is difficult to make any
> judgments about which of these three patterns is "best". Most likely, each
> pattern will be suited to different situations, and there may be a need for
> all three. I had a chat with Sean about this this morning, and he felt the
> same way. 
> 
> So I can see two options open to the WG.
> 
> OPTION 1 - Move all support for relations between lexical entitites *out* of
> the SKOS Reference. (If time, publish a note illustrating three alternative
> patterns with some vocabulary.)
> 
> OPTION 2 - Leave the current SKOS Reference features in place. (If time,
> publish a note illustrating the two remaining patterns with some
> vocabulary.)
> 
> I had originally favoured option 2, however I am beginning to see that to
> favour any one pattern by placing it in the SKOS Reference does not
> accurately reflect the state of standardisation and consensus.
> 
> If we chose option 1, we could then consider publishing a note on the three
> design patterns. For illustration, I've sketched the outline of such a note
> at:
> 
> [3] <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/xl/20080414>
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Alistair.
> 
> [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Apr/0041.html>
> [2] <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/SKOS-XL>


[1]
[2]