RE: What about "taxonomies"? RE: Glossary of terms relating to thesauri and faceted classification

Not sure I'm entirely happy with all this:

1. "...glossaries and other types of controlled vocabularies.." Sorry,
but lots (perhaps most) of glossaries are not controlled vocabularies.
Lots of glossaries give more than one definition for the same term,
especially when they are multilingual. Better to drop the mention of
glossaries, in my view.

2. I agree subject heading lists are more like systems than schemes.

3. Would it be possible to put in ", some taxonomies," instead of just
", taxonomies," since we are having such difficulty in agreeing a
definition for them?

4. Anyway, I don't like Leonard's narrow definition of taxonomy,
limiting it to monohierarchical. I'd go along with one narrow
definition, limiting it to the Linnaean style of taxonomy, which does
happen to be monohierarchical but applies only to species, genera and
other taxa of organisms. As soon as you move outward from that, it's
useful to embrace polyhierarchy as an option. But we do need to spend
further time agreeing a definition, hopefully one that will be *useful*
to the community of electronic information users.

All the best
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 February 2005 12:34
To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Subject: RE: What about "taxonomies"? RE: Glossary of terms relating to
thesauri and faceted classification



This all sounds good to me, will update the SKOS Core guide & spec
accordingly (if no-one has any objections).

Al.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Leonard Will
> Sent: 05 February 2005 20:50
> To: SKOS
> Subject: Re: What about "taxonomies"? RE: Glossary of terms
> relating to
> thesauri and faceted classification
> 
> 
> 
> In message
> <F5839D944C66C049BDB45F4C1E3DF89D18DB74@exchange31.fed.cclrc.a
> c.uk> on 
> Fri, 4 Feb 2005, "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk> wrote
> >A 'conceptual scheme' or 'concept scheme' is defined here
> as: a set of
> >concepts, optionally including statements about semantic
> relationships
> >between those concepts. Thesauri, classification schemes, subject
> >heading schemes, terminologies, glossaries and other types of 
> >controlled vocabularies are all examples of conceptual schemes.
> >
> >How does that sound?
> 
> It sounds fine to me, and as nobody has raised serious
> objections I have 
> added it to the glossary at 
> <http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/glossary.htm>. I hope that is OK.
> 
> 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 . . .
> 
> >Do you think we should add 'taxonomies' to the second
> sentence, or not :) ?
> 
> I have added it, as I have also added "taxonomy" to the glossary with
> it's narrower definition as a monohierarchical classification scheme.
> 
> I put in a note to say that "taxonomy" is sometimes used with
> a broader 
> meaning, which seems equivalent to your definition of 
> "concept scheme" 
> above. Adding it to the definition of "concept scheme" with 
> that meaning 
> would be self-referential, and should therefore be avoided.
> 
> 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 Monday, 7 February 2005 14:48:53 UTC