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

RE: Supporting arrays of concepts : node labels

From: Ron Davies <ron@rondavies.be>
Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 14:25:58 +0200
Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20040509142529.01c544e0@pop.skynet.be>
To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Let me apologize in advance for asking what might be a very naive question 
at this stage, but there is a tremendous amount of material to get through 
to try to get up to speed on current developments. Stella brings up an 
issue that I was just trying to get a grip on, namely, the sequence in the 
different concepts presented as of the same property. Is there any implied 
sequence among, say, Narrower Terms for a given concept? If so, what is it 
(or who determines it) and where is it indicated?

Thanks very much.

Ron

Ron Davies
Information and documentation systems consultant
Av. Baden-Powell 1  Bte 2, 1200 Brussels, Belgium
Email:  ron@rondavies.be
Tel:    +32 (0)2 770 33 51
GSM:    +32 (0)484 502 393

At 13:43 9/05/2004, Stella Dextre Clarke wrote:

>Firstly, a note of support for Leonard's very thorough explanation of
>node labels.
>
>Secondly, re the alternative representations proposed by Alistair and
>David Menendez, I'm not quite sure what will work best. I like the way
>the array relationships are "semi-detached" from the relationships
>between concepts, and I'm glad to see a proposal that allows systematic
>rather than alphabetical sequence. To decide which representation is
>best, perhaps we should consider how the node labels and arrays will be
>used, and what functions need to be supported. I don't see much use for
>them in the direct process of information retrieval, but they are useful
>during thesaurus browse, when they should facilitate displays of
>portions of a thesaurus. A meaningful grouping of terms helps people
>choose the right term, either while indexing or while searching. They
>are also useful during the process of building a thesaurus.
>
>Stella
>
>*****************************************************
>Stella Dextre Clarke
>Information Consultant
>Luke House, West Hendred, Wantage, Oxon, OX12 8RR, UK
>Tel: 01235-833-298
>Fax: 01235-863-298
>SDClarke@LukeHouse.demon.co.uk
>*****************************************************
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
>[mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Miles, AJ
>(Alistair)
>Sent: 06 May 2004 16:18
>To: 'Leonard Will'; 'public-esw-thes@w3.org'
>Subject: RE: Supporting arrays of concepts : node labels
>
>
>
>Hi Leonard,
>
>Thanks for this, yes I was intended the skos:Array construct to cover
>your scenario 1 only, i.e. an array of concepts ordered according to
>some characteristic of division.
>
>I think scenario 2 should be handled differently, though I'm not sure
>how yet.
>
>Al.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Leonard Will
> > Sent: 06 May 2004 15:47
> > To: 'public-esw-thes@w3.org'
> > Subject: Supporting arrays of concepts : node labels
> >
> >
> >
> > In message
> > <B56ABE145BEB0C40A265238FCAA420DF01DC8E58@oa2-server.oa.oclc.org> on
> > Wed, 5 May 2004, "Houghton,Andrew" <houghtoa@oclc.org> wrote
> > >
> > >> From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) [mailto:A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk]
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 2:21 PM
> > >> Subject: Supporting arrays of concepts
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> This is a strawman proposal for addition to the SKOS-Core schema:
> > >>
> > >> Some thesauri group concepts into ordered arrays, and label the
> > >> array, e.g.
> > >>
> > >>      People
> > >>                <people by age>
> > >>                Children (0-12 years)
> > >>                Teenagers (13-19 years)
> > >>                Adults (over 20 years)
> > >>
> > >> Since this sort of thing is common practise, and I believe
> >  will be a part of
> > >>the new British standard for thesauri  (Leonard, Stella?),
> > I thought we
> > >>ought to come up with a  mechanism for representing it as
> > part of the
> > >>SKOS-Core vocab.
> >
> > Yes, it is in the draft of the new standard. It would be good to have
> > software to handle it properly, as most existing packages are weak in
> > this area.
> >
> > >> The problem is the best way to represent an ordered list
> > in  RDF.  The
> > >>consensus so far seems to be for using RDF Lists
> > (collections).  The
> > >>other problem is how to connect an array  to the parent
> > concept.  Such a
> > >>connection cannot replace the  skos:broader statements from
> > the array
> > >>members, and must be  synchronised with them.
> >
> > >This seems like what is called Node Labels and used by AAT and Dewey.
>
> > >Node Labels can be thought of as concepts that participate in the
> > >hierarchy structure but cannot be assigned as concepts.  In
> > Dewey, for
> > >example, it has the notion of centered entries.  If you look
> > at the printed
> > >edition these have a > (greater than sign) preceeding the
> > class span.  You
> > >cannot assign them as a class number but they are present for the
> > >purposes of grouping the hierarchy, as in your example.  Node Labels
> > >have all the same relationships as concepts do, so many
> > times they are
> > >represented as concepts.
> >
> > Unfortunately, the expression "node label" has been used to mean
> > different things in different places. They should not be thought of as
>
> > concepts, because they do not represent concepts, and they do not have
>
> > scope notes or  any of the normal thesaurus relationships. When using
> > software that does not make proper provision for node labels it is
> > sometime necessary to treat them as concepts and give them BT/NT
> > relationships in order to display them in the proper place in a
> > hierarchy, but this is a fudge.
> >
> > The AAT uses the expression "guide terms" rather than node labels, and
>
> > includes in this not only real node labels (as described at 1
> > below) but
> > also terms which represent real concepts but which it thinks are
> > inappropriate for use as indexing terms. This is confusing and
> > misleading; I think that any term used to describe a concept should be
>
> > potentially usable in indexing, though it can have the note "use a
> > more specific concept if possible".
> >
> > In the draft British Standard we propose that there should be
> > two kinds
> > of node label:
> >
> > 1. A node label showing a "characteristic of division". This
> > is the kind
> > shown in the example above, and each label contains the word "by"
> > followed by the characteristic by which the elements of the following
> > array are distinguished. There may be several arrays under any term,
> > each introduced by a separate node label, e.g.
> >
> >       people
> >           <people by age>
> >               children (0-12 years)
> >               teenagers (13-19 years)
> >               adults (over 20 years)
> >
> >           <people by occupation>
> >           builders
> >           bus drivers
> >           information technologists
> >           information scientists
> >           librarians
> >
> >           <people by sex>
> >           male people
> >               men
> >               boys
> >           female people
> >               women
> >               girls
> >
> > and so on.
> >
> > 2. In a display of a classification, rather than a thesaurus, node
> > labels are used to show where a change of facet occurs, especially
> > when terms from different facets are being combined. They make it
> > clear that
> > the relationship between the terms preceding and following the node
> > label is not BT/NT, but that the following classes are a
> > compound of the
> > subsequent concepts with the preceding concept. In the following
> > example, the node labels containing the names of facets are given in
> > parentheses:
> >
> > (organisms)
> > mammals [in general]
> >       carnivores [in general]
> >           leopards
> >           lions
> >           tigers
> >       herbivores [in general]
> >           cattle
> >           sheep
> > (processes)
> >       physiological processes [in general]
> >           digestion [in general]
> >               (organisms)
> >               [digestion in] carnivores
> >                   [digestion in] lions
> >               [digestion in] herbivores
> >                   [digestion in] cattle
> >                   [digestion in] sheep
> >           respiration [in general]
> >               (organisms)
> >               [respiration in] lions
> >
> > The words in square brackets in this example are often omitted in
> > classification schedules, being implied by the indentation or
> > typography.
> >
> > I take it that at the moment you are just addressing the issue of node
>
> > labels of type 1.
> >
> > >SKOS currently doesn't take Node Label's into account with
> > it's prefLabel
> > >and altLabel elements.  It is possible that a Node Label
> > could have many
> > >different altLabel's.  I don't think that you need to add
> > additional structure
> > >to represent Node Labels.  Perhaps, what is needed is to say that a
> > >concept must have either a group of prefLabel elements
> > (xml:lang'ed) or a
> > >group of nodeLabel elements (xml:lang'ed) and can have any number of
> > >altLabel elements.  Since Node Labels will also have BT, NT, RT
> > >relationships, you will not need to duplicate that structure
> > by reusing
> > >skos:Concept.
> >
> > How this is implemented technically I'll leave to someone else, but I
> > think you have to be careful and not accept this paragraph literally
> > (at least if you accept our definition of node labels). As a node
> > label is not a label for a concept, there is no underlying concept to
> > which altLabels can be applied.
> >
> > Node labels do not have BT, NT or RT relationships, except in
> > the fudged
> > case I described above to make use of software without the required
> > functionality. The BT/NT relationship in effect "jumps over" the node
> > label, so that in the first example above the relationship is
> >
> > people
> > NT    children
> >       teenagers
> >       adults
> >       builders
> >
> > etc.,
> >
> > and _not_
> >
> > people
> > NT    <people by age>
> >
> > etc.
> >
> > Leonard
> > --
> > Willpower Information       (Partners: Dr Leonard D Will,
> > Sheena E Will)
> > Information Management Consultants              Tel: +44
> > (0)20 8372 0092
> > 27 Calshot Way, Enfield, Middlesex EN2 7BQ, UK. Fax: +44
> > (0)870 051 7276
> > L.Will@Willpowerinfo.co.uk
> > Sheena.Will@Willpowerinfo.co.uk
> > ---------------- <URL:http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/>
> > -----------------
> >

Ron Davies
Information and documentation systems consultant
Av. Baden-Powell 1  Bte 2, 1200 Brussels, Belgium
Email:  ron@rondavies.be
Tel:    +32 (0)2 770 33 51
GSM:    +32 (0)484 502 393
Received on Sunday, 9 May 2004 08:26:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 13:32:03 UTC