Best practices: representing homonym relationships in SKOS

[Bradley Allen-2]

Twitter failed to cough up an answer, so I'll try the lists: is there
any best practice or, failing that, good ideas for representing
homonymy in SKOS? Best I can come up with is subclassing
skos:semanticRelation with something like skos:hasHomonym, and letting
the client sort out which of the lexical labels might be involved. Not
excited about the need to go to a class representation for labels;
even less interested in anything involving RDF collections. - cheers,
BPA

Bradley P. Allen
http://bradleypallen.org
[phone]

[Karl Dubost-3]

Le 12 nov. 2009 à 19:55, Bradley Allen a écrit :
> is there any best practice or, failing that, good ideas for  
> representing
> homonymy in SKOS?


    homophone: same sound, different meaning
or homograph: same graph, different meaning

Maybe a better list is public-swd-wg@...

The use case has been mentioned in 2006 but not directly addressed
http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?type-index=public-swd-wg&index-type=t&keywords=homonymy&search=Search

But it is a domain where it matters for VoiceXML, in PLS 1.0
Pronunciation Lexicon Specification (PLS) Version 1.0

There are two sections on homophone and homographe
http://www.w3.org/TR/pronunciation-lexicon/#S5.4


--
Karl Dubost
Montréal, QC, Canada
http://www.la-grange.net/karl/