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

Re: Glossaries

From: Carl Mattocks <carlmattocks@checkmi.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 11:07:44 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <21930.216.163.247.1.1107792464.squirrel@webmail.netcarrier.com>
To: "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org

Agreed glossaries are not controlled vocabularies ... but they are a
popular Knowledge Organisation System used to define the meaning of
related terms ... just not (so) rigorously controlled .

I think it useful to include a reference to "glossaries" that obviates the
need to answer the question of 'why is glossary excluded from the
definition. ?'

cheers
carl

<quote who="Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)">
>
>>
>> 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/>
>> > -----------------
>> >
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
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, 7 February 2005 16:07:45 GMT

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