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

Re: Definition of "facet"

From: Tudhope D S (Comp) <dstudhope@glam.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:50:45 -0000
Message-ID: <EF1C49A3F569D41186C900508B6DDC990C568FD0@ems3.glam.ac.uk>
To: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
> Yes, I am becoming more and more convinced that thesauri and
> classification schemes are just alternative ways or arranging and
> presenting lists and groups of concepts. I therefore am very keen to
> help arrive at a single set of unambiguous terms which we can use to
> discuss these things, rather than having to qualify statements by saying
> that we are talking "in a thesaurus context" or "in a classification
> context".
Yes - it would be nice to move to a situation where we just defined a 
particular kind of KOS and its properties according to a standard KOS scheme
and set of terms.
 
> This is an interesting discussion - I wonder whether other people have
> views on whether what we are saying makes sense.  Are we making any
> progress towards a consensus of opinion?
Just picking up this thread having returned from a trip - 
I do think we are fairly close to a broad consensus on the basic notion of a
(simple) facet, 
without getting into any particular set of top level categories or
combination rules.
Eg as per Leonard's previous definitions of a homogeneous class of concepts
or the similar definitions in the BSI standards, Aitchison & Gilchrist, etc.
 
Some of the other issues, such as roles, synthesis rules for strings, and
fundamental categories belong I think to the (next) stage of higher level
schemes or OWL definitions for different kinds of KOS. 
 
However as regards the SKOS RDF scheme, I thought the original SKOS
definition of facet was fairly close* to this and I was sorry to see it
dropped it from the latest version. Did I miss some discussion on this or is
it considered something best left for the next version? 
 
* (My original question boiled down to a couple implementation details:
Is a 'facet' best modelled as a type of concept or as a separate entity,
when considering future OWL developments?
Is the Broader relationship best suited for concept-facet relationships, or
should it be a basic subclass/superclass relationship?)
 
Doug
Received on Monday, 15 March 2004 10:55:13 GMT

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