ISSUE-179
Last Call Comment: PFWG: Lexical Labels
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- SKOS
- Raised by:
- Alistair Miles
- Opened on:
- 2008-10-08
- Description:
Raised by Al Gilman on behalf of PFWG in [1]: """ Re Section 5. Lexical Labels The motivation for the Integrity Conditions listed in section 5.4. (S13 and S14) is not clear. They appear to be overly constraining and badly aligned with the architecture of distributed systems, where labels could come from different sources and authors, and where redundancies may arise. Why is it okay to have no preferred label defined, but it is a clash to have the same string as preferred and alternate label? A SKOS application should be able to deal with situations where there are competing preferred labels, or one label being redundantly defined as “preferred” and “alternate”. These situations should not make the SKOS application fail. """ [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0063.html
- Related emails:
- ISSUE-179: Last Call Comment: PFWG: Lexical Labels (from dean+cgi@w3.org on 2008-10-08)
- Re: SKOS comment (s) from PFWG (from alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2008-10-08)
- Preferred terms (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-10-10)
- Re: Preferred terms (from aisaac@few.vu.nl on 2008-10-13)
- ISSUE-179 draft response (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-10-13)
- Re: Preferred terms (from alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2008-10-14)
- Real List of No Changes! (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-10-14)
- Re: swd minutes 2008-10-14 (from alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2008-10-15)
- [ALL] agenda 21 Oct telecon - 1500 UTC (from schreiber@cs.vu.nl on 2008-10-20)
- Re: SKOS comment (s) from PFWG [ISSUE-129] (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-10-20)
- RIF: [ALL] agenda 21 Oct telecon - 1500 UTC (from Margherita.Sini@fao.org on 2008-10-21)
- [SKOS] Update on Last Call Comments (from alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2008-12-02)
Related notes:
2008-11-10: ACTION: Accept
2008-11-10: CHANGE-TYPE: None
2008-11-10: RESOLUTION: The desire to provide a single value of preferred label is motivated by requirement R-CompatibilityWithISO2788 [2] and thesaurus guidelines provided the main motivation for the uniqueness of prefLabels. We also suggest that the intuitive interpretation of "preferred" implies a single choice. Note that the integrity conditions specify "no more than one preferred label per language [tag]", thus custom language tags /could/ be used in situations where competing preferred labels were needed. Note also that the presence of multiple preferred labels does not necessarily lead to *failure* of a SKOS application. Section 1.4 of the Reference document provides further discussion relating to the use of integrity conditions in SKOS.
2008-12-15: Closed with no response from commenter.
2008-12-16: COMMENTER-RESPONSE: None