RE: [Proposal][SKOS-Core] handling top concepts - original use ca se

Alistair
maybe only to add another perspective here...
The situation you explain for macro thesaurus is exactly the same as
it is for any documentation classification system which are
'aspect' or 'perspective' in their nature (as opposed to taxonomies).
In these general knowledge classifictions any concept can be in two or
more hierarchies.
This is why concepts are usually linked 'horizontally' through
cross reference [see also]. Hence, this so called 'syndetic'
structure of classifications is used for disambiguation alongside
thesauri whenever several broad knowledge areas are connected.
So if anyone wants to use any of these concepts the other
one is offered as an alternative - either in the process of
indexing or later in the process of retrieval...

Aida


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Miles, AJ (Alistair)
>
> Sent: 04 August 2004 18:11
> To: 'Dan Brickley'
> Cc: 'public-esw-thes@w3.org'
> Subject: RE: [Proposal][SKOS-Core] handling top concepts - original use
> ca se
>
>
>
> This issue originally came up through collaboration with the UK Archival
> Thesaurus team.  UKAT is a thesaurus with several contained
> 'microthesauri'.
> UKAT wanted to know how to model microthesauri, which are not
> covered by the
> current SKOS Core guide.  I suggested they model each microthesaurus as a
> concept scheme in its own right.  The UKAT concepts can then be
> declared as
> members of both the overarching scheme and a microthesaurus as well.  Some
> concepts are top concepts within a microthesaurus, but not in the
> overarching scheme - this was the original use case.  That's when we
> realised there could be a problem with skos:TopConcept whenever a
> concept is
> a member of more than one scheme.
>
> I was thinking about putting a section on 'Microthesauri' in the 'Advanced
> Features' section of the proposed 'Guide to Using SKOS Core for Thesauri'
> note, explaining how to do it ... what do you reckon?
>
> (Btw I started sketching a table of contents for that note on the wiki at
> http://esw.w3.org/topic/SkosCoreGuideToc )
>
> Al.
> ---
> Alistair Miles
> Research Associate
> CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> Building R1 Room 1.60
> Fermi Avenue
> Chilton
> Didcot
> Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
> United Kingdom
> Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
> Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@w3.org]
> > Sent: 04 August 2004 17:55
> > To: Miles, AJ (Alistair)
> > Cc: 'public-esw-thes@w3.org'
> > Subject: Re: [Proposal][SKOS-Core] handling top concepts
> >
> >
> > * Miles, AJ (Alistair)  <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk> [2004-08-04 17:27+0100]
> > > > Thanks, this identifies a discomfort I've had w/
> > interactions between
> > > > 'top concept' notion and thesaurus mixing. At heart you're saying
> > > > 'top concept' is a relation between a a
> > scheme/dataset/thesaurus and
> > > > a concept. Makes sense to me.
> > > >
> > > > So would this be:
> > > >
> > > > <owl:FunctionalProperty
> > > > rdf:about="http:///....../skos/core#hasTopConcept"/>
> > > >
> > > > ie. anything that has a skos:hasTopConcept has only one
> > such thing?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks Dan.
> > >
> > > The original idea was that a scheme has several skos:hasTopConcept
> > > properties, pointing to the top level concepts for that
> > scheme (i.e. so not
> > > functional).
> > >
> > > If we made skos:hasTopConcept functional, each scheme would
> > have to be
> > > defined with a single root concept ... do you think it's
> > worth doing it that
> > > way?
> >
> > Ah, righto. I was reading too much into 'top'.
> >
> > Yeah seems more useful to have several, otherwise they'll all just be
> > thing/entity/object/resource etc...
> >
> > I'm not 100% clear on the use case for this construct, I guess.
> >
> > Dan
> >
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 4 August 2004 14:18:33 UTC