- From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:03:44 +0200
- To: Stella Dextre Clarke <sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk>
- Cc: 'Sue Ellen Wright' <sellenwright@gmail.com>, 'Quentin Reul' <qreul@csd.abdn.ac.uk>, 'SWD Working Group' <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
Hi Stella Stella Dextre Clarke a �crit : > Sue Ellen, > Yes, I can see that treating antonyms as synonyms would not suit a > terminology application at all. And even for thesaurus applications, > it only works for *some* antonyms in *some* contexts. (For example the > black/white and war/peace cases that have been mentioned look most > unlikely candidates.) I chose "black" and "white" for sake of simplicity, knowing they are unlikely to appear as concepts in a thesaurus. But we seem to all agree that antonyms deserve a special treat. And that a pair of antonyms should be represented in SKOS as two different instances of skos:Concept, right? > For a thesaurus manager, however, it is nice to be able to apply this > treatment in selected cases. Can/should SKOS try to meet all needs of > all user groups? Maybe SKOS (core at least) should not, but RDF can, as Jakob wrote this need could be dealt with a specific subproperty of skos:related skos:antonym rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:related If it's not defined in SKOS namespace, nothing prevents to declare it in a specific extension defined by those who have this need my-skos-extension:antonym rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:related I've been playing with medical terminologies lately, and there is this notion of "excludes" in ICD10. See http://www.icd10.ch/ This is also a form a antagonist relationship, which could be defined as subproperty of skos:related, maybe specific to ICD, maybe reusable by other vocabularies. There is no difficulty to specify subproperties of skos:related in RDF. The real question is to know if those specifications are of enough general use to be integrated in SKOS core, or defined in SKOS extensions, or left to the community of users to specify in their own namespace. For antonyms and exclusions, I'm leaning towards the second solution. Cheers Bernard > cheers > Stella > > ***************************************************** > Stella Dextre Clarke > Information Consultant > Luke House, West Hendred, Wantage, Oxon, OX12 8RR, UK > Tel: 01235-833-298 > Fax: 01235-863-298 > SDClarke@LukeHouse.demon.co.uk > ***************************************************** > *Bernard Vatant *Knowledge Engineering ---------------------------------------------------- *Mondeca** *3, cit� Nollez 75018 Paris France Web: www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com> ---------------------------------------------------- Tel: +33 (0) 871 488 459 Mail: bernard.vatant@mondeca.com <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> Blog: Le�ons de Choses <http://mondeca.wordpress.com/>
Received on Friday, 27 April 2007 11:03:48 UTC