Last Call Comment: PFWG: Lexical Labels

Raised by:
Alistair Miles
Opened on:
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.

Related emails:
  1. ISSUE-179: Last Call Comment: PFWG: Lexical Labels (from on 2008-10-08)
  2. Re: SKOS comment (s) from PFWG (from on 2008-10-08)
  3. Preferred terms (from on 2008-10-10)
  4. Re: Preferred terms (from on 2008-10-13)
  5. ISSUE-179 draft response (from on 2008-10-13)
  6. Re: Preferred terms (from on 2008-10-14)
  7. Real List of No Changes! (from on 2008-10-14)
  8. Re: swd minutes 2008-10-14 (from on 2008-10-15)
  9. [ALL] agenda 21 Oct telecon - 1500 UTC (from on 2008-10-20)
  10. Re: SKOS comment (s) from PFWG [ISSUE-129] (from on 2008-10-20)
  11. RIF: [ALL] agenda 21 Oct telecon - 1500 UTC (from on 2008-10-21)
  12. [SKOS] Update on Last Call Comments (from 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