For Sense gloss, I'd rather have it as schema:description than rdfs:label. I don't think gloss makes sense as a label - it's a descriptive text, not name.
Topic on Extension talk:WikibaseLexeme/RDF mapping
I totally see your point, Stas. But one big advantage of having an rdfs:label is that the rdfs:label is used by many tools for default rendering. Thus having an rdfs:label is better than not having it.
This leads to the question whether it is better to have something else as the rdfs:label. The one other candidate I can think of is the associated Lexeme's label. But this means that all Senses of a Lexeme have the same label, which also might be confusing.
What is your counterproposal: 1) have no rdfs:label, 2) have the gloss be both the rdfs:label and the schema:description, or 3) use the Lexeme's lemma as the rdfs:label on the Sense? Or 4) something else entirely?
I agree that the mapping is not perfect, but it seems pragmatically OK. No?
I agree with Denny. For me, we add rdfs:label alongside skos:definition only for compatibility with rendering tools. But imho the Wikidata Query Service should only index skos:definition in order to keep a clean schema, for saving space, and in order to avoid affecting the results of the existing queries that are using rdfs:label to look for items.
I think I'm ok with having rdfs:label if it helps real-life use cases. I probably won't keep it in WDQS but if it's useful for other tools then fine with me.
Hi,
I am quite curious, why is it rdfs:label rather than lemon:SenseDefinition?
Hey Noé. we are using skos:definition for sense glosses and additionally rdfs:label for compatibility with external tools. In query.wikidata.org only skos:definition is loaded. I don't see the definition of lemon:SenseDefinition in the Ontolex draft we are following and in the Lemon model it seems to be a class and not a property.
Hi Tpt. You're right, lemon:SenseDefinition is a class, the property is lemon:definition and it's interesting, it is not part of Ontolex model (but Lexinfo 2.0 still use it as it is not up-to-date). So, skos:definition make sense. rdfs:label seems too vague for me, but I got the point, compatibility is importante.
Ok, I thought the Lexical data will provide glosses and no definitions, but the property used for now is definition. How do you map both glosses and definitions? It is not very clear to me.
Lexical data provides indeed only glosses as part of the native data model. We mapped the relation between a sense and its gloss(es) to skos:definition. It looks fine to me because skos:definition is, I think, much broader than the linguistics "definition" (c.f. skos spec). This usage has been suggested by the sentence A definition can be added to a lexical concept as a gloss by using the
from the Ontolex draft.skos:definition property.
I agree skos:definition may include gloses and definitions, as defined by Ontolex, but I don't think it's a good option to mix both under one property.
It may happen an incompatibility with other lexical ontologies that used the same property for definitions. And if at some point Wikidata community decides to include gloses and definition, they may have to change the properties used for the former one, isn't it?
Finally, for people with no knowledge of lexicography or ontology, it may make unclear what a glose is in Wikidata.
Well, I have no better solution to offer right now, but it is puzzling.