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

Glossaries

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 15:59:13 -0000
Message-ID: <F5839D944C66C049BDB45F4C1E3DF89D18DB81@exchange31.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

> 
> 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.

OK glossaries are not controlled vocabularies, but I think they are still concept schemes (where two concepts can have the same preferred label).

Cheers,

Al.



> 
> 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 15:59:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:53 GMT