W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > January 2004

dropping <soks:descriptor> and using <soks:prefLabel> instead

From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:06:26 -0000
Message-ID: <350DC7048372D31197F200902773DF4C0494409E@exchange11.rl.ac.uk>
To: 'Stella Dextre Clarke' <sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk>
Cc: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

> RE the SKOS-Core document, this seems to be setting up 
> definitions for a
> series of terms, and I am a little concerned that the 
> terms/definitions
> being established in your group may differ from those in our standard,
> which we hope will be adopted internationally (in the longer run). In
> some cases the definitions are compatible with each other; in other
> cases there is a real difference of usage.  For example, I am 
> not sure I
> have understood the difference made in the SWAD document between the
> property "prefLabel" and the property "descriptor", since the former
> property seems to be exactly what our standard means by "descriptor"
> i.e. the unique name by which a concept should be labelled. We use the
> term "non-descriptor" for any alternative (non-preferred) name for the
> same concept. 

Having both <soks:descriptor> and <soks:prefLabel> is definitely confusing.
I suggest we drop the property <soks:descriptor> from SKOS-Core.  We retain
<soks:prefLabel>, which should be used to assert the preferred name by which
a concept should be labelled.  The name should be unique within the
particular conceptual scheme.

To take one of the examples in the SWAD 
> document, "Orange
> (fruit)" could be a descriptor or a non-descriptor, depending 
> on how it
> is established in the thesaurus. Spelling this out a little, in
> Thesaurus A, we might have an entry "Orange (fruit) BT Citrus fruits",
> indicating that both of these terms are descriptors. In Thesaurus B we
> might have an entry "Orange (fruit) USE Oranges", indicating that the
> former term is a non-descriptor. It goes without saying that all the
> terms in a thesaurus, whether descriptors or non-descriptors, 
> have to be
> unique. I was not quite clear, studying the SWAD document, whether
> "descriptor" could also be used for the things that our standard calls
> "non-descriptors" - which would be unfortunate!  Sorry I have made
> rather a meal of this example, but I am just wondering how we could
> proceed so that there are no real incompatibilities between the
> terminologies used in the SWAD work, and those in the thesaurus
> standard.

Just to state that I too would like to make sure that the SWAD work is
compatible with the new thesaurus standard.

Alistair.

> 
> 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
> Telephone: +44 (0)1235 445440
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2004 08:12:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:51 GMT