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

RE: notes at contepts vs notes at terms

From: Houghton,Andrew <houghtoa@oclc.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:00:44 -0400
Message-ID: <D53793AA582576458786FBE27899DB1801557650@OAEXCH2SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mark van Assem
> Sent: 26 October, 2005 07:01
> To: Miles, AJ (Alistair)
> Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Subject: Re: notes at contepts vs notes at terms
> 
> 
> Hi Alistair,
> 
> > I don't know how to say this without sounding like an arse 
> ... but I'm pretty sure that what you're suggesting 
> contradicts the basic principles of thesaurus construction 
> and use, as I've learned them from ISO 2788, the new BS 8723, 
> and directly from folks like Stella and Leonard.
> 
> Probably you're right, but I think that some of the thesaurus 
> folk are in favour of having a Term class for the reason of 
> attaching properties to them. The result is that you can have 
> URIs for them, and use the terms in the ways I suggest. And I 
> guess that if people find those useful, they *will*, no 
> matter what any standard is saying. And I don't think they 
> would be wrong in doing so.
> 

It sounds like this is just a difference between "encoding" and the principles of thesaurus construction, and not a contradiction.  The principles of thesaurus construction, as described in ISO 2788 or BS 8723, describe how each concept can be constructed and related to other concepts in a thesaurus.  The thesaurus standards do not prescribe any "encoding" method for maintaining a thesaurus.

Thesaurus management systems are free to use whatever encoding makes sense to maintain the information about concepts and relationships as described in the thesaurus standards.  If it is beneficial to have a terms class for SKOS this does not contradict the thesaurus standards, unless you are also making an assertion that terms are equivalent to concepts.

>From what I have read on the list, it didn't sound like anyone was saying that a term was equivalent to a concept, which would contradict the thesaurus standards.  What seemed to be said was that it was convenient to have a deeper "encoding" structure to maintain information about concepts.

The impression that I got was that there is a many-to-one relationship between terms and concepts and it was important to attach properties to terms which the current SKOS "encoding" does not support.  So a new "encoding" was proposed to maintain additional information associated with terms.


Andy.
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2005 14:02:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:54 GMT