RIF: Comments on SKOS Primer

Dear Antoine,
 
Here my contribution for the revision of the SKOS Primer.
 
- Section about "Alternative Lexical labels"
In this example:
ex:rocks rdf:type skos:Concept;
  skos:prefLabel "rocks"@en;
  skos:altLabel "basalt"@en;
  skos:altLabel "granite"@en;
  skos:altLabel "slate"@en.
I was thinking if it is good to suggest a better representation of this
example (as this solution is mentioned not to be recommended), for example by
suggesting to make "basalt", "granite", etc. NT of "rocks".
 
- skos identify the prefLabel, altLabel and hiddenLabel. I suppose that the
altlabel and hiddenLabel are the ones that can be used in case of USE/UsedFor
relationship in a thesaurus.
I would suggest to have a look to the USE/UsedFor+ relationship, between a
compound term and 2 terms, for example:
(i have no good agrovoc examples now, lets use this)
"mad cow disease symptoms" USE "mad cow disease" AND "symptomps"
"mad cow disease" USEDFOR+ "mad cow disease symptoms"
"symptomps" USEDFOR+ "mad cow disease symptoms"
We have to check if this exists in the ISO2788, and in this case try to solve
it. If, instead, is only something used in the AGROVOC thesaurus, then do not
consider this as not standard.
 
- in section 2.3 for all relationships as already mentioned I suggest to make
them more clear by adding the verb. For example:
 - skos:hasNarrowerConcept
 - skos:hasBroaderConcept
 - skos:hasRelatedConcept
etc.
 
- in section "Broader/Narrower Relationships"
We should think if it is needed to have both these examples:
ex:animals rdf:type skos:Concept;
  skos:prefLabel "animals"@en;
  skos:narrower ex:mammals.
ex:mammals rdf:type skos:Concept;
  skos:prefLabel "mammals"@en;
  skos:broader ex:animals.
As the two relationships are inverse each other, the second examples can be
automatically inferred. I was thinking that, because when i created the SKOS
version of AGROVOC, I created both relationships but the file resulted to be
very big. In was thinking in this case if we could give users suggestion in
order to make the skos representation more efficient by limiting the
information to represent and leave all what can be inferred out. Do you think
is possible?
 
- Section 2.4: also for this relationship i would suggest to have
skos:hasNote, skos:hasScopeNote, etc.
 
- section 2.5: considering the skos:inScheme tag. I personally not used it in
the agrovoc skos version, because i preferred to make use of the
skos:hasTopConcept to associate concepts to the ConceptSchemes. Using this i
define the full hierarchy of the scheme, because i consider all the
skos:hasTopConcept plus all the skos:narrower to build the full hierarchy of
the classification scheme.
Therefore I do not use the skos:inScheme for every concept in the thesaurus
because this information again can be inferred.
Here i would like also to point out another problem: if i have multiple
schemes, i can define the skos:hasTopConcept for both schemes. But then, i
would like to create the hierarchy of the two schemes differently from the
thesaurus hierarchy. is this possible?
For example I have scheme SA and scheme SB, and I have the following skos
concepts:
  skos:concept activities
 skos:hasNarrower forest activities
  skos:hasNarrower logging
  skos:hasNarrower fire protection
  skos:concept enviroment protection
 skos:hasNarrower water pollution prevention
Maybe I would like in SA this situation:
 - forest activities
  - logging
 - enviroment protection
  - fire protection
  - water pollution prevention
And in SB this situation: 
 - forest activities
 - enviroment protection
(sorry could not find good examples but i hope this gives you a good idea of
what i mean. Basically i would like to customize the hierarchies based on
schemes).
 
- in 2.5 at page 11 is written "no two concepts in the same concept scheme be
given the same preferred lexical label in a given language"... But prefLabel
are in general assigned to skos:concept indipendently if they belongs to a
scheme or another scheme, so i suppose this sentence is valid also in the
entire skos representation...?
 
- section 3.2 page 14: is it really possible to create mapping within the
same concept scheme? why not to use skos:broader instead skos:broadMatch?
 
- section 3.4: what is the need to define skos:subject instead of using
dc:subject? i probably need to refer to the emails for issue48... i will have
a look as soon as possible.
 
- section 4: i think this includes some comments i have done above, e.g. here
we can include the idea of having  different hierarchies for different
classification schemes and the compount terms.
 
- section 4.1: page 17
 _:b0 rdf:type skos:Collection;
    skos:prefLabel "people by age"@en;
    skos:memberList _:b1.
 _:b1 rdf:first ex:infants;
    rdf:rest _:b2.
 _:b2 rdf:first ex:children;
    rdf:rest _:b3.
 _:b3 rdf:first ex:adults;
    rdf:rest rdf:nil.
It is not clear here the "rdf:nil".
 
- 4.2: i read in the skos reference about symbolic labels... (ISSUE-76) I
think these may be useful information to be represented. In AGROVOC we have
chemical elements which can be represemted with formulas for exmample.
 
- section 4.4: i agree very much on the relationships between labels. I was
just wondering if it is possible to refer to label also with a uri and not by
repeating the label (as one time is written when defining the label and one
time when doing the relationship).
Hope this helps.
 
I would like to mention that I am sick at home, therefore I will not be able
to participate at the teleconference tonight.
 
Regards
Margherita

Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2008 14:12:27 UTC