W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > December 2007

Re: [SKOS]: [ISSUE 44] BroaderNarrowerSemantics

From: Joseph Tennis <jtennis@u.washington.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:00:29 -0800
To: "public-swd-wg@w3.org" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
CC: "public-esw-thes@w3.org" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C38804BD.6579%jtennis@u.washington.edu>
Hi

Again, sorry if I've missed something, but I would think we'd want to proceed with SKOS like this:


 1.  identify the data model of the indexing language (subject heading list, thesuarus, classarus, enumerative classification scheme, faceted classification scheme, etc.) and then,
 2.  bind it so that we can exchange it meaningful over the semantic web

It seems to me the simplicity of this is in the binding (hopefully), where we assume the data model elsewhere, and SKOS just references it...

Sorry if I've missed something in the longer conversation.

Oh... And I like the diagram, it's fun!

joe


--
Joseph T. Tennis
Assistant Professor
The Information School of the University of Washington
http://faculty.washington.edu/jtennis


On 12/14/07 9:02 AM, "Simon Spero" <ses@unc.edu> wrote:

On Dec 14, 2007 2:06 AM, Joseph Tennis <jtennis@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>  Sorry to swoop in here, but I did want to point something out that might  help.  I suppose yours is a problem if we assume LCSH expresses thesaural relationships by listing a BT, i.e., it that it is a thesaurus.  However,  LCSH is not a thesaurus, it's a different creature altogether - it's a  'subject heading list,' and does not adhere to the model of a thesaurus, and as a consequence BT does not mean the same thing to LCSH as it would to vocabularies built to comport to Z39.19.

You're absolutely right about the issues here; the examples came from
a paper I'm working on with the working title "LCSH is to Thesaurus as
Doorbell is to Mammal".

The problem with the LCSH is that they're  "subject headings disguised
as a thesaurus" \cite{Dykstra:1988lr}.   Calling associative
relationships that are not in the least hierarchical  "broader" and
"narrower" did not prove fruitful.   Weakening the semantics of
broader/narrower for SKOS would be repeating the same mistake.

Properly handling intransitive hierarchical relationships is heading
dangerously close to non-monotonic country.  That could cost SKOS its
'S' :)   Issues that need to be addressed, but not by, er, default.

Simon



@article{Dykstra:1988lr,
        Abstract = {Discusses recent changes in the Library of Congress
Subject Headings (LCSH), arguing that the adoption of the
well-recognized codes for thesauri has created confusion because the
LCSH is not a true thesaurus. The distinction between subject headings
and terms are clarified and a possible solution to the problems with
the LCSH is suggested. (5 references) (MES)},
        Author = {Dykstra, Mary},
        Id = {EJ367784},
        Journal = {Library Journal},
        Keywords = {Library of Congress Subject Headings},
        Number = {4},
        Pages = {42--46},
        Title = {LC Subject Headings Disguised as a Thesaurus.},
        Ty = {JOUR},
        Volume = {113},
        Year = {1988}}
Received on Friday, 14 December 2007 18:00:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:59 GMT