> From: Bernard Vatant <[log in to unmask]>
>>> I proposed lately a 5-star scale also
>>> for vocabularies 
>> I'd be happy to learn whether PanLex (http://panlex.org) is an example of
>> a vocabulary eligible for that rating
> We must all be very cautious here on terminology, but the targets of the
> 5-star scale for vocabularies are those quite compact formal vocabularies
> defining classes (aka types) and properties (aka attributes) expressed in
> either RDFS or OWL, with sometimes a pinch of SKOS.
Thank you, Bernard. That helps circumscribe the population of potentially 5-star things.
> PanLex (which I did not know - thanks for the link) looks to me more like a
> lexical data base (dataset) than a vocabulary in the above sense
Yes, it's a database of assertians about lexemes in language varieties. It has made use of data from formal vocabularies, but I doubt that it can reasonably be understood as a formal vocabulary itself. It formalizes assertions about lexemes (such as an assertion that one lexeme is a translation of another lexeme). Sets of such assertions can be reported in arbitrary output formats. An overview of the schema is at http://panlex.org/tech/panlex-db-design.pdf, and perhaps this contains an implicit compact formal vocabulary.
Both the lvont ontology and GOLD seem capable of representing many of the ideas implicit in the PanLex schema.
> from a legal viewpoint,
> it's a MUST : you have to understand equivalent terms the same way. No
> choice :)
Yes, so they can disagree on what that identical understanding must be, choosing whichever equivalent helps prove their claims.
> would often define skos:closeMatch relationships
Doesn't the definition of this property (including nontransitivity) resemble what most translations in ordinary plurilingual dictionaries assert?