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

Re: Identification vs Definition RE: candidate and deprecated concepts

From: Carl Mattocks <carlmattocks@checkmi.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:39:17 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <55951.216.163.247.1.1097530757.squirrel@webmail.netcarrier.com>
To: public-esw-thes@w3.org

et Bernard :

Seeking clarification ... are we agreeing that

(1) An URI is not always a concept (whether or not a fragment identifier
is used)

(2) A Knowledge Organization /Organisation System Concept in a controlled
vocabulary is always a member of a set
(3) A Knowledge Organization /Organisation System Concept in a
controlled vocabulary which is a thesaurus always participates in one BT /
NT relationship

Thus a Thesaurus Concept 'scheme identifier' must identify a BT / NT
relationship in a set   ?

carl

<quote who="Bernard Vatant">
>
>
> Leonard
>
>> I think it would be difficult to publish a set a concepts "in the
>> abstract" without any implicit relationships between them, whether you
>> call this a "scheme" or not. The problem is that the usual way of
>> defining a concept is to say what broader concept it is a member of, and
>> then specify the ways in which it is differentiated from other members
>> of that broader concept.
>>
>> E.g.    "A child is_a person less than 18 years old"
>>         "An insect is_an invertebrate with a jointed body and six legs"
>>         "Physics is_a science which deals with matter and energy"
>>
>> Thus in the act of defining concepts you define hierarchical
>> relationships to other concepts. You may be able to specify additional
>> relationships of all kinds between concepts to make a more complex
>> scheme, but that is additonal to the hierarchy inherent in the
>> definitions.
>
> I could not agree more, and we are here at the core of the identification
> vs definition
> issue.
>
> Main aspects of this issue are:
>
> 1. How do I make distinct in a concept scheme the "defining properties"
> that one cannot
> remove without changing somehow the concept, from other "added
> properties"?
>
> 2. If a concept is *identified* by a URI in a concept scheme, is it
> correct to say that it
> is *defined* by this same URI providing you can get through it some
> non-ambiguous
> information resource about the concept defining properties (subject
> identifier vs subject
> indicator again ...)
>
> 3. If a concept identifier is re-used in another scheme, what should be
> the
> requirements/recommendations concerning the commitment of the re-user to
> the initial
> definition of the concept?
>
>
> Bernard Vatant
> Senior Consultant
> Knowledge Engineering
> Mondeca - www.mondeca.com
> bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Carl Mattocks

co-Chair OASIS (ISO/TS 15000) ebXMLRegistry Semantic Content SC
co-Chair OASIS Business Centric Methodology TC
CEO CHECKMi
v/f (usa) 908 322 8715
www.CHECKMi.com
Semantically Smart Compendiums
(AOL) IM CarlCHECKMi
Received on Monday, 11 October 2004 21:39:18 GMT

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