- From: Jon Phipps <jphipps@madcreek.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 08:17:27 -0500
- To: "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, "Daniel Rubin" <rubin@smi.stanford.edu>, <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Al, I'd like to suggest in the light of further discussion that we reconsider Guus's Simple Extension Proposal[1]. Perhaps if we were able to declare skos:prefLabel as having an owl:equivalentProperty relationship to the rdfs:label property of a skos prefTerm, then this would allow us to effectively join a 'term' graph to a concept by asserting a typed relationship without impacting the current semantics of prefLabel. I think this might be far more effective than simply allowing a resource to be the object of a skos:label property. I believe that Antoine had drawn this pattern on a notepad at the f2f but it didn't provoke much discussion. As I recall the main objections to Guus's proposal had to do with problems with the overloading of 'term' and the fact that it's subject to rather broad interpretation. Perhaps rather than simply rejecting the proposal, we could see if we can't adjust the naming to be more acceptable wrt to the apparent ambiguity of the term 'term' -- prefLexicalTerm perhaps. Personally I'm far more comfortable allowing the joining of a term to a concept to both maintain and allow relationships between terms that can't be effectively expressed with the more generalizable conceptual relationships supported by skos than I am with the currently supported solution. It seems to me that there are far too many instances where publishing a concept using skos involves enough of a loss of useful data that it would present a barrier to acceptance of skos. --Jon [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007May/0057.html On Nov 20, 2007, at 7:40 AM, Miles, AJ ((Alistair)) wrote: > > Hi all, > > I just wanted to connect this discussion up with ISSUE-27 > AnnotationOnLabel [1] -- we should bring that issue up the agenda > and discuss asap. > > Cheers, > > Al. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/27 > > -- > 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 Antoine Isaac >> Sent: 19 November 2007 22:10 >> To: Daniel Rubin >> Cc: public-swd-wg@w3.org; Alan Ruttenberg >> Subject: Re: SKOS/ synonym provenance >> >> >> Hi Daniel, Alan, >> >> You are actually making points in favor of this many-to-one >> option, which will be interesting to remind if we go for the >> label-as-resource option (which, I remind you, is not the >> current choice of the WG!) >> >> I wonder however how your specific case can fit the SKOS >> world: what you call synonym here could be a case of >> skos:altLabel between two concepts in different communities >> and the "study" label, couldn't it? >> Also, I don't think SKOS should propose means to represent >> provenance from entities different from concept schemes. Your >> "communities" seem a very specific requirement. And the >> problem is difficult enough for concept schemes, I'd say :-( >> >> But at least we can try to have a basis that fits your >> representation needs in a reasonable way. It would therefore >> help if you could say whether you prefer represent your >> information using label-as-resources or Alistair's n-ary >> patterns for labels-as-literals [2]. Every user's advice is >> welcome on this point. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Antoine >> >> [2] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RelationshipsBet >> weenLabels/ProposalFour >> >>> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> Alan Ruttenberg is interested ability of SKOS to support >> associating >>> information with synonyms, such as provenance, or recording the >>> community that uses the term. He had some comments he wanted me to >>> share with SWD on our issue called Label Relations under active >>> discussion [1]. Please see his comments below. >>> >>> Daniel >>> >>> [1] http:// isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/public/skos/2007/10/f2f/label- >>> relations.html >>> >>> ______________ >>> >>>> I think we would say that we need the many to one case, as if the >>>> literal was inverse functional we would not be able to >> have the same >>>> word be a synonym for different terms for different communities. >>>> >>>> So take the case of the term "study". In the clinical trial >>>> community this would be a synonym for ClinicalTrial, but in the >>>> Nutrigenomics community it is a synonym for some portion of a >>>> clinical investigation. >>>> >>>> Therefore our case resembles the cow case, but is more clearly >>>> motivated: >>>> >>>> ex1:cow rdf:type skos:Label; >>>> skos:plainLiteralValue "cow"@en; >>>> dcterms:created "2007-09-09". >>>> >>>> ex2:cow rdf:type skos:Label; >>>> skos:plainLiteralValue "cow"@en; >>>> dcterms:created "1903-05-05". >>>> >>>> instead >>>> >>>> obi:study_trial rdf:type skos:Label; >>>> skos:plainLiteralValue "study"@en; >>>> obi:forCommunity obi:ClinicalCommunity. >>>> >>>> obi:study_nutri rdf:type skos:Label; >>>> skos:plainLiteralValue "study"@en; >>>> obi:forCommunity obi:NutrigenomicsCommunity. >>>> >>>> As another example, consider the recording of the association of >>>> lexical terms with concepts that would be derived from text mining. >>>> In that case we would like to record the fact that the synonym is >>>> sanctioned by a particular publication. Thus the skos:Label is the >>>> lexical form by which the entity is cited in the paper. >>>> >>>> Please pass this back to the SWD, and feel free to follow >> up or have >>>> someone else from SWD follow up. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Alan >>>> >>>> -Alan >>>> >>>>> At 09:08 PM 11/14/2007, you wrote: >>>>>> Hi Daniel, >>>>>> >>>>>> We had discussed the issue of associating information with >>>>>> synonyms, such as provenance, or recording the community >> that uses the term. >>>>>> You mentioned that you would talk to the SWD group about whether >>>>>> this as acknowledged as a requirement for SKOS and if >> not, whether >>>>>> it could be. I'm wondering whether you got to that, and >> if so what >>>>>> the response was. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Alan >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 13:24:22 UTC