ISSUE-184

Last Call Comment: Notation and prefLabel overlap

State:
CLOSED
Product:
SKOS
Raised by:
Sean Bechhofer
Opened on:
2008-10-08
Description:
Raised by Michael Panzer [1]:


4. skos:notation and skos:prefLabel are overlapping
---------------------------------------------------

There are two issues here: 1, Most notation in classification schemes is
preferred (i.e., standard) notation. Should both skos:notation and
skos:prefLabel be used for all these cases?

2, On some occasions an alternative (i.e., optional) notation is given
for a concept. For example, inScheme CCT:
        [Q89] environmental biology
            Preferred class: X17

Regardless whether it is preferred or alternative, the notation always
represents a unique concept and therefore has semantic relationships.
Hence, an alternative notation is not a non-preferred thesaurus label,
which has only lexical relationships.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0061.html
Related emails:
  1. ISSUE-184: Last Call Comment: Notation and prefLabel overlap (from dean+cgi@w3.org on 2008-10-08)
  2. Re: SKOS comment: Last Call Working Draft (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-10-08)
  3. LC Comments: Classification Schemes (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-10-09)
  4. Re: LC Comments: Classification Schemes (from aisaac@few.vu.nl on 2008-10-13)
  5. Re: ISSUE-184: Last Call Comment: Notation and prefLabel overlap (from aisaac@few.vu.nl on 2008-10-17)
  6. ISSUE-184 new draft response (from aisaac@few.vu.nl on 2008-10-30)
  7. meeting record: 2008-11-04 SWD telecon (from swick@w3.org on 2008-11-04)
  8. [SKOS] Re: SKOS comment: Last Call Working Draft [ISSUE-184] (from aisaac@few.vu.nl on 2008-11-04)
  9. [SKOS] Update on Last Call Comments (from alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2008-12-02)

Related notes:

2008-11-10: ACTION: Accept

2008-11-11: CHANGE-TYPE: None

2008-11-11: RESOLUTION: Regarding your first comment, we would like to emphasize that you are free to use both skos:notation and the "private language tag" solutions and as you see fit. In particular, you can also use only one of them, for example if you do not want to coin a datatype of your own to be used with skos:notation. Assuming that the "preferred" aspect of a notation is what you really want to emphasize on, you can thus use skos:prefLabel only or skos:prefLabel and skos:notation, as you propose. Regarding the second aspect, nothing prevents the use skos:altLabel, in combination with private use tags, to express that a notation has an "alternative" flavour. Further, in SKOS the semantic relationships are attached to concepts and not to their lexicalizations, whether preferred or alternative. Your Q89/X17 example could be represented as: ex:x17 rdf:type skos:Concept ; skos:broader ex:x1 ; skos:prefLabel "environmental biology"@en ; skos:prefLabel "x17"@x-notation-mynotation ; skos:altLabel "q85"@x-notation-mynotation ; (assuming that your "X17" has "X1" as a parent class) There is no essential difference, as far as semantic relations are concerned, between representing notations as alternative or preferred labels. I hope this addresses your concerns appropriately. As we believe that the current SKOS model satisfies the requirements you mentioned, we propose to *close* ISSUE-184 [ISSUE-184], making no change to the existing SKOS documents. *We hope that you are able to live with this.*

2008-12-15: Closed with no response from commenter.

2008-12-16: COMMENTER-RESPONSE: None