- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:34:29 +0200
- To: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
- CC: SWD Working SWD <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Hi Sean, > I note, however, that this is not explicitly stated in our user > requirements Do you mean, in the SKOS use case and requirements document? If yes, we can consider it to be hidden in R-CompatibilityWithISO2788 . Thesaurus guidelines provided with the main motivation for the uniqueness of prefLabels... But actually I would consider that the intuitive semantics of "preferred" should be enough. If you use some sources which make you not able to distinguish a specific label, then it is quite worthless to fake having a "preference". Note that maybe the cases mentioned by Al could be solved by appropriate use of custom language tags to distinguish between different "flavors of language" used by the different systems. Something like my:un skos:prefLabel "United Nations"@en-x-system1 ; skos:prefLabel "UN"@en-x-system2 That's tricky, but I believe the scenario Al mentions are also a bit tricky, too. Antoine [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-ucr#R-CompatibilityWithISO2788 > > > ISSUE-179 raises a question about our definition of preferred and > alternate terms (labels), in particular whether multiple preferred > terms are allowed. I was under the impression that the convention in > thesauri was that concepts had at most one preferred term, leading to > the constraint. The notion of "preferred", to me at least suggests a > singleton. I note, however, that this is not explicitly stated in our > user requirements. Can anyone provide links to concrete rationale or > existing standards where this is discussed? > > Thanks, > > Sean > > -- > Sean Bechhofer > School of Computer Science > University of Manchester > sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk > http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer > > > > >
Received on Monday, 13 October 2008 13:06:28 UTC