RE: candidate and deprecated concepts

Thanks Stella,

It's clear I'm going to have to rethink this.

Al.

---
Alistair Miles
Research Associate
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
Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Stella 
> Dextre Clarke
> Sent: 07 October 2004 17:42
> To: 'Miles, AJ (Alistair) '; 'Leonard Will'; public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Subject: RE: candidate and deprecated concepts
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between a deprecated concept and a deprecated term may
> not be as clear as you might wish. (And even the word 
> "deprecated" is a
> bit strange to me in the context of thesauri. We usually just say
> non-preferred.) It is unusual to drop a concept altogether. 
> Normally one
> provides a lead-in entry pointing to the broader concept that 
> covers the
> scope of the preferred term that is now to be "deprecated". 
> It is conceivable that if it was decided that a large subject 
> area with
> perhaps hundreds of concepts was now out-of-scope, then all the
> corresponding terms might be dropped without trace ( although this is
> not usually recommended). The thesaurus might well be renamed or
> rebranded to mark the transition. 
> Much more likely would be to decide that that subject area should be
> indexed at a much shallower level of specificity. So, for 
> example, in a
> thesaurus for agricultural products, it might be decided that tropical
> products should no longer be covered in detail. Where 
> previously you had
> Bananas, Pineapples, Brazil nuts etc as preferred terms ( with a
> hierarchy of BTs such as Tropical fruits all the way up to Tropical
> products), you might leave just one term "Tropical products" to cover
> all of these. In the thesaurus you would organise entries such as
> "Bananas USE Tropical products" - perhaps hundreds of such 
> entries. Now
> where is the "deprecated concept"? All we have is one very 
> broad concept
> taking in tropical products at all levels of detail, and lots of
> non-preferred terms. 
> 
> So the idea of a "deprecated concept" just feels a bit alien. 
> 
> I don't warm, either, to the idea of a concept getting "replaced" by
> another one, unless they are so close that you would treat the two as
> quasi-synonymous. You are hardly going to replace Bananas with Washing
> machines?
> 
> 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: 07 October 2004 15:42
> To: 'Leonard Will'; 'public-esw-thes@w3.org'
> Subject: RE: candidate and deprecated concepts
> 
> 
> 
> I'm actually thinking about supporting candidate/deprecated *concepts*
> (and not terms), which brings a slightly different set of 
> requirements.
> 
> Al.
> 
> ---
> Alistair Miles
> Research Associate
> 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
> Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org 
> > [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Leonard Will
> > Sent: 07 October 2004 15:20
> > To: 'public-esw-thes@w3.org'
> > Subject: Re: candidate and deprecated concepts
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > In message
> > <350DC7048372D31197F200902773DF4C05E50C7D@exchange11.rl.ac.uk>
> >  on Thu, 7 
> > Oct 2004, "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk> wrote
> > >
> > >The paradigm (as I understand it) in the thesaurus world is
> > for terms (or
> > >concepts) to go through three stages: candidate, accepted,
> > deprecated (i.e.
> > >replaced).
> > >
> > >We can use dcterms:replaces and dcterms:isReplacedBy to
> > describe concept
> > >replacements I think (although how to handle replacement
> > with combinations
> > >is uncertain yet).
> > 
> > If use of a term is discontinued, it is good practice to
> > retain it as a 
> > non-preferred term, with a USE pointer to the term or 
> combination of 
> > terms that should be used in future for the concept that it 
> > represented. 
> > A history note should indicate when it was used for indexing.
> > 
> > I don't think that you need to distinguish between "deprecated" and
> > "non-preferred" terms, which you would express as altLabels. 
> > As you have 
> > noted, you do however have to handle combinations such as:
> > 
> > "physics education  USE  physics  AND  education"
> > 
> > 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/> 
> > -----------------
> > 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 8 October 2004 11:03:30 UTC