SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Reference¶
Miles, A., & Bechhofer, S. (2009). SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Reference.
Cited by¶
12 citations across 12 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Alternative label
- The W3C Simple Knowledge Organization System encodes this through
skos:altLabel: a property attached to a concept that admits additional recognized lexical strings alongside the singleskos:prefLabel.SupportedVerified against a saved copy of the source
“S13 skos:prefLabel , skos:altLabel and skos:hiddenLabel are pairwise disjoint properties. S14 A resource has no more than one value of skos:prefLabel per language tag.”
- The W3C Simple Knowledge Organization System encodes this through
- Preferred label
- The concept is most precisely instantiated in the W3C SKOS data model, where
skos:prefLabelcarries the preferred label andskos:altLabelcarries alternatives; the SKOS specification mandates that no concept may have more than oneprefLabelper natural languageThis sourceDefines skos:prefLabel as the preferred lexical label and skos:altLabel as the alternative ones, and requires that a resource have no more than one value of skos:prefLabel per language tag. The W3C SKOS Reference, which limits a resource to one skos:prefLabel per language tag and notes that many applications need a preferred label for a human-readable display. Is the SKOS integrity condition that a resource (concept) have no more than one value of skos:prefLabel per language tag.
Supported in partVerified against a saved copy of the source
“SKOS enables a distinction to be made between the preferred, alternative and "hidden" lexical labels for any given resource.”
- The concept is most precisely instantiated in the W3C SKOS data model, where
- Controlled Vocabulary
- Listed in the references but not attached to a specific claim.
- Declared Equivalence Mapping
- Literature Review
- Listed in the references but not attached to a specific claim.
- Marking System
- Listed in the references but not attached to a specific claim.
- Naming System
- Listed in the references but not attached to a specific claim.
- Near-equivalence Mapping
- A near-equivalence mapping is a declared correspondence between two concepts in different controlled vocabularies that flags them as highly similar but not safely interchangeable in all contexts — the canonical instance being SKOS
closeMatch, which records that c1 in S1 and c2 in S2 are close enough to support cross-scheme browsing, retrieval, and many inference uses, but that some queries will distort if the substitution is made without context-checkingSupported in partVerified against a saved copy of the source
“These properties are used to state mapping (alignment) links between SKOS concepts in different concept schemes, where the links are inherent in the meaning of the linked concepts.”
- A near-equivalence mapping is a declared correspondence between two concepts in different controlled vocabularies that flags them as highly similar but not safely interchangeable in all contexts — the canonical instance being SKOS
- Schema Mapping Relation
- The minimum commitment is five-part: a source scheme S1; a source concept c1 within S1; a target scheme S2; a target concept c2 within S2; and a correspondence type that grades the fidelity of the bridge — in the SKOS vocabulary from which the candidate originates, one of
exactMatch(safe to substitute without loss),closeMatch(navigable but loss-risk should be declared),broadMatch(c1 is narrower than c2, the bridge climbs the hierarchy),narrowMatch(c1 is broader than c2, the bridge descends), orrelatedMatch(associative link useful for browsing, not for inference)This sourceLists the five SKOS mapping properties - exactMatch, closeMatch, broadMatch, narrowMatch and relatedMatch - with exactMatch as interchangeable use and broadMatch/narrowMatch as the hierarchical links.
Supported in partVerified against a saved copy of the source
“are used to state mapping (alignment) links between SKOS concepts in different concept schemes”
- The minimum commitment is five-part: a source scheme S1; a source concept c1 within S1; a target scheme S2; a target concept c2 within S2; and a correspondence type that grades the fidelity of the bridge — in the SKOS vocabulary from which the candidate originates, one of
- Hidden Label
- In SKOS the mechanism is
skos:hiddenLabel, the third tier belowprefLabel(the displayed canonical name) andaltLabel(additional displayed synonyms)This sourceStates that SKOS distinguishes skos:hiddenLabel from skos:prefLabel and skos:altLabel, accepting hidden labels for search while not otherwise displaying them. The SKOS rule that human-readable representations are generated from the preferred and alternative labels, hidden labels being excluded from display.
SupportedVerified against a saved copy of the source
“SKOS enables a distinction to be made between the preferred, alternative and "hidden" lexical labels for any given resource.”
- In SKOS the mechanism is
Mechanisms¶
- Ontology Alignment Map
- The link types come from a real vocabulary — SKOS mapping relations such as `exactMatch`, `broadMatch`, and `relatedMatch`.
This sourceDefines the SKOS mapping vocabulary, including `exactMatch`, `broadMatch`, and `relatedMatch`.
- The link types come from a real vocabulary — SKOS mapping relations such as `exactMatch`, `broadMatch`, and `relatedMatch`.
- Semantic Schema
- And where two catalogs used different headings for the same idea, the schema declares the mapping explicitly, using SKOS match properties
This sourceDefines explicit cross-scheme mappings with SKOS exactMatch for high-confidence equivalence and closeMatch for a weaker similarity relation.
- And where two catalogs used different headings for the same idea, the schema declares the mapping explicitly, using SKOS match properties
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 6 of 12 citations: 2 supported, 4 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:422a1f0b7ed7 · see in the full table