RE: Label relations confusingly named?

Dear Tom,

The new editors' draft of the SKOS Reference <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20080118> attempts to address your comment below, by adding an editorial note in section 8 to explain that the WG is considering alternative names for these properties, with a link to a new ISSUE-81 dedicated to this decision.

Btw, the original motivation for choosing "skos:labelRelated" rather than "skos:relatedLabel" was to avoid clashing with the naming pattern used for the SKOS lexical labeling properties (skos:*Label) -- I was afraid some users might confuse "skos:relatedLabel" for a labeling property, or think it was something to do with RT in thesauri. But anyone who read the spec thoroughly couldn't possibly make this confusion, regardless of what the property name is, so I have no preference either way.

Also, note that semantic relations and concept mapping relations are binary relations, whereas label relations are n-ary relations, and therefore the naming conventions are expected to differ.

Kind regards,

Alistair.  

--
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 Thomas Baker
> Sent: 08 January 2008 13:06
> To: SWD Working Group
> Subject: Label relations confusingly named?
> 
> 
> The draft SKOS Reference [1] very helpfully points out the 
> symmetry between mappingRelation (with its subproperties 
> broadMatch, narrowMatch, and relatedMatch) and 
> semanticRelation (with its subproperties broader, narrower, 
> and related).
> 
> However, I find that this naming pattern subtly gets in the 
> way of grasping the much different concept of label relations.
> The problem becomes clear if one puts the names side-by-side:
> 
>     Properties:   labelRelated    mappingRelation  semanticRelation
>     Classes:      LabelRelation
> 
> I cannot think of a better name than LabelRelation, but I 
> would find it less confusing if labelRelated were renamed 
> relatedLabel:
> 
>     Properties:   relatedLabel    mappingRelation  semanticRelation
>     Classes:      LabelRelation
> 
> Tom
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20071223
> 
> --
> Tom Baker - tbaker@tbaker.de - baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de
> 
>

Received on Friday, 18 January 2008 16:53:58 UTC