Quasi node labels

In message 
<B56ABE145BEB0C40A265238FCAA420DF026F52BE@oa2-server.oa.oclc.org> on 
Tue, 11 May 2004, "Houghton,Andrew" <houghtoa@oclc.org> wrote
>
>> From: Leonard Will [mailto:L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk]
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 10:43 AM
>> Subject: Re: Supporting arrays of concepts
>>
>> 2. As regards node labels, I have tried to show that we need
>> to distinguish between
>>
>>         (a) real "node labels", which specify a characteristic of 
>>division in the form <xxx by yyy> and
>>
>>         (b) broader concepts which act as parent terms to the  terms 
>>in a following array.
>>
>> DDC centred headings and some of the AAT guide terms fall  under (b), 
>>and should not be called node labels. Structurally  these are just 
>>terms representing concepts which the  thesaurus editor has decided 
>>are unsuitable for use in  indexing (and may have to be labelled in 
>>some way to indicate this).
>
>I think I agree with your idea of separating the two.  Maybe what is
>needed is another element at the same level as skos:Concept, perhaps
>skos:Summary, that handles (b)

I think that calling it "summary" would confuse the issue, because these 
terms _do_ in fact represent concepts, and in the AAT for example they 
can occur at any level. I'd prefer to see them treated as a sub-class of 
concept, having the restriction that they are not to be used for 
indexing.

>and the current proposal for handling (a).  Although the current 
>proposal seems odd to me.

Sorry, but I'm not clear exactly what you mean by "the current proposal" 
- are you referring to the definition of node label as in (a) above, or 
the SKOS proposals for encoding these?

>It seems to me that you might want to have additional metadata 
>associated with node label array in addition to the list of concepts 
>associated with it. For example scope notes or other types of notes.

Again, I'm not clear what you mean by "node label array". If you mean 
the node label, as in (a), under which an array of concepts is listed, 
then I suppose you might have a note clarifying the characteristic of 
division*, but that would be unusual. There would be no harm in 
providing for such a note, but the main point is to avoid confusing node 
labels with descriptors, i.e. terms that are labels for concepts.

*(As an example, I suppose that the node label <people by occupation> 
could have a note saying "Occupation refers to a trade or profession in 
which a person is currently engaged for more than the equivalent of one 
day per week". This is effectively extracting a common factor to avoid 
repeating it in the scope notes of each of the concepts in the array.)

Leonard Will

-- 
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/> -----------------

Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2004 18:16:45 UTC