Reviews:PierluigiMiraglia about Term-based thesaurus to lightweight ontology – record-based model
From Odp
(New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2009/9/8 |SubmittedBy=PierluigiMiraglia |ContentOPUnderReview=Term-based thesaurus to lightweight ontology – record-based model |Revis...) |
Current revision (22:53, 7 September 2009) (view source) (New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2009/9/8 |SubmittedBy=PierluigiMiraglia |ContentOPUnderReview=Term-based thesaurus to lightweight ontology – record-based model |Revis...) |
Current revision
Overall suggestion (score): 1 - needs minor revision
I recommend revising and/or refining the following topics (see below for fuller description): - Use of OWL Full - Consider SKOS - BT/NT interpretation - UF interpretation - Illustrative flow charts
It may be enough, in most cases, for the author(s) or discussion participants just to clarify their position.2: Would it not be more natural to transition a term-based thesaurus to a SKOS formalization, and then map skos:Concepts terms to classes (or individuals) in an ontology? This may allow flexibility in dealing with the aforementioned OWL Full problem.
3: Is it typically desirable to turn BT/NT relations into transitive sub/superclass relations? This pattern, as written, assumes it is, regardless of the context or purpose of the intended deployment. Again, the SKOS specs proceed more carefully. It may be worth to consider not only an example of applying this pattern, but also a use case -- i.e. an example of why one might want to apply it.
4: In many thesauri the UF relation is used for synonymous term strings (i.e. synonyms in a synset) rather than self standing terms. It seems that would be a simpler solution, too.
5: The graphical charts could be clearer in representing iteration over the NT terms of a term created (rather than just say 'repeat', use a cyclic graph for that part of the chart).Posted: 2009/9/8 Last modified: 2009/9/7