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

RE: Global concept identification and reference: Published Subjects and decentrally provided identification points for notions

From: Aida Slavic <aida@acorweb.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:30:46 -0000
To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AAEKLFPLCPPCFCOACDKIIEGECPAA.aida@acorweb.net>

Hi

I read Alexander Sigel's message with great interest, especially the
part about "knowledge workers in discourse that will provide PSIs in a P2P
fashion"....
and also the part about "identity assertions as part of the discourse"

I have a few concerns with relation to the following scenario:

1) Vocabulary 1 (primary) - Publishing Agency 1
TERM1 has a unique ID within its native database
(Based on this ID cancellations and updates are done between
publishers and users. Hence the vocabulary is maintained and evolves).

Vocabulary 1 is published (transported as XTM), is available through
some kind of terminological service and is protected by
copyright

2) Vocabulary 2 (authority file) - Publishing Agency 2
Here TERM1 + TERM2 (from originating terminology scheme above or from
two different schemes) are merged to create a new complex statement
(a complex statement has different scope, different meaning, and a
new permanent ID in a given database).
[something like nanotechnology, biotechnology = nanobiotechnology]
An authority file (i.e. Vocabulary 2) as such has added value. It contains
a choice of terms from one or more native vocabularies and can
also be accessed through terminological service (transported as XTM)
and protected by copyright.

What I don't understand here is whether the "ID inheritance"  is
expected to be
a) regulated between Agency 1 and Agency 2
b) "XTM registry" will be a natural third party regulator which
relies on 'identity assertions'.

Both?

I would be very interested to learn about this as I am working with KOS
which
is an "indexing language" as opposed to a 'mark and park taxonomy' and every
application produces new 'jargon' which has important value for a community
of users.
With respect to this I find the following to be in contradiction with KOS
as they tend to be flexible, hospitable, and extendable.

>And p. 416: "Arbitrary proliferation of the introduction of new terms
>should be avoided with an appropriate [PSI] registry architecture."
>(And more on recurring challenges and bottom-up construction of KOSs
>by discourse communities on p. 430f.)


Aida Slavic
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2004 20:30:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:52 GMT