W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > February 2005

concept schemes

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 12:27:55 -0000
Message-ID: <F5839D944C66C049BDB45F4C1E3DF89D18DB79@exchange31.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

Hi all,

> Personally, if I were King of the Forest, I would ban the word
> "scheme".  For one thing, it is simply too close to "schema",
> which is almost as bad, and in overlapping but nonetheless
> different ways.  At a minimum, we must acknowledge that
> in practice, people get them confused all the time, myself
> included.  

Personally I have never been quite happy with the word 'scheme' myself, but it was the best thing we had at the time, and was inspired by the dublin core class dc:SubjectScheme.

I think it's too late to change the URI, but if anyone has any suggestions about better names for this thing, I'd love to hear them (e.g. 'system', 'schedule' ... ?).

> Assuming we have to use "scheme"...:
> -- I like Aida's suggestion for "subject heading systems".
> -- In http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/glossary.htm, there is no
>    definition of "scheme" itself, though there is (analogously)
>    a definition for "schedule" (which, however, I would have
>    expected to read "a SET of terms...").
> > I think you have to call it a "concept scheme" rather than 
> a "conceptual 
> > scheme", because the latter form makes it sound as though 
> it is not a 
> > real scheme, just a conceptual one . . .
> -- Yes.  I had been vaguely uneasy with the notion that
>    "concept" or "conceptual" could be used interchangeably
>    here, and this comment puts the finger on why.  I would
>    also prefer just "concept scheme" (assuming "scheme"
>    is used at all).

Yep, I agree, will scrub 'conceptual scheme' from the guide.


Received on Monday, 7 February 2005 12:28:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 13:32:05 UTC