W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > August 2006

Re: Example of coordination with DDC

From: nabonita guha <nabonitaguha@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 10:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20060802173132.20206.qmail@web30001.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
   Hello friends, 

I do agree with Aida regarding the interpretations on DDC, UDC and CC. But here I would like to clarify certain things:

* Firstly, by initiating discussion on the topic of extension of SKOS to incorporate faceted classification schemes, my sole purpose was to get the opnion from SKOS & other KO community regarding the incorporation of faceted approach in SKOS.

* Secondly, I wanted to know that for the sake of simplicity are we ready to avoid the basic objective to Semantic Web i.e. Semantic retrieval?

* Thirdly, I strongly believe that if we incorporate the theories on which CC is based in SKOS or in any ontology language, definitely the retrieval system will be more efficient in expressing semantics.

* Lastly, I said 'Extension', only because there is no point in setting up too many standards for the same purpose. I still believe "Too many standards on the same topic leads to non-standardization". That's what I wanted to know whether proposing a new language for knowledge organization will be better or we can go with the extension of SKOS.

NB: I never intended to prove the strengths or weaknesses of any classification scheme.

Thanks & regards

Nabonita


Aida Slavic <aida@acorweb.net> wrote: 
Hi,

If I remember correctly there was a similar discussion in 2004. 
My understanding was that the problem of structured classification
notation was to be ignored by SKOS at the time, and that complex notation 
ought to be treated as a simple text string. 

Jakob Voss wrote

>SKOS should be able to express DDC, UDC and CC - but it must stay
>simple! So what do you suggest to express CC's "U:(W)" in the next SKOS?

I don't understand what does 'simple' mean in this case. DDC is  simple
enumerative classification with largely non-expressive notation which is
used as text string to 'mark and park' books. UDC and CC are 
analytico-synthetic classifications with fully expressive structured 
notation the parts of which shoud be searchable using booleans. 
To code an expressive notation one needs:
- way to encode facet indicators or separate parts of notation independent of
notation itself 
- way to encode relationship between parts of the complex notation
- the way to encode correct notation hierarchy independently from notation (this 
can be sorted out as BT/NT relationship or as hierarchy code)

If the first two are not possible in SKOS then you can not say that "SKOS expresses 
classification"  but rather "SKOS expresses enumerative classification"
For instance the examples Jakob gave for DDC (which is the only type of combination
DDC has)

<551.22>
    
     

Does not solve the problem of 32:37 (relationship between education and politics) from UDC
where two main subjects are combined

I think that any generalisations based on DDC or LCC, which are enumerative systems for
linear shelf ordering - may be wrong. This certanly made MARC 
classification format completely useless for classifications that are used
in IR (UDC in particular). 

Also, there were some misinterpretations in Nabonita's mail that I would like to put 
straight
 		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Everyone is raving about the  all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
Received on Wednesday, 2 August 2006 17:31:45 GMT

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