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

Re: general type of controlled vocabulary

From: Luis Bermudez <bermudez@mbari.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:25:12 -0800
Message-Id: <C00A8607-9785-4400-96D2-370503114736@mbari.org>
Cc: bob.mulrenin@salzburgresearch.at, public-esw-thes@w3.org
To: Jakob Voss <jakob.voss@gbv.de>

I tried to classify different controlled vocabularies in my thesis,  
here:
http://dspace.library.drexel.edu/handle/1860/376 (See chapter 9, page  
93). It was based on Knowledge Organizations Systems by Hodge [1]:

[1] G. Hodge, Systems of Knowledge Organization for Digital  
Libraries: Beyond
Traditional Authority Files The Digital Library Federation, Council  
on Library
and Information Resources, Washington, DC, 2000.

Hope this helps,

Luis

Luis Bermudez Ph.D.
MMI Technical Lead - http://marinemetadata.org
bermudez@mbari.org Tel:  (831) 775-1929
MBARI 7700 Sandholdt Road, Moss Landing CA 95039-9644, USA





On Feb 28, 2007, at 8:11 AM, Jakob Voss wrote:

>
> Bob Mulrenin wrote:
>
>> We are planning some open source components and there are a couple of
>> general issues and I would appreciate your feedback.
>>
>> What is the best practice for declaring the type of controlled
>> vocabulary  as either either thesaurus, taxonomy, classification  
>> scheme,
>> subject headings,  folksonomy, etc ?  Hopefully referencing a  
>> standard
>> vocabulary of these types (?)
>>
>> It would help to be consistent with others and so that the tools  can
>> adapt the management and presentation features, as well as offer
>> services to external apps....
>>
>> <skos:ConceptScheme rdf:about="http://www.ukat.org.uk/thesaurus">
>> <dc:type>http://..../thesaurus</dc:type>
>
> As Stella pointed out it's not that easy to tell what is a thesaurus,
> taxonomy, classification scheme etc. I think it's more relevant what
> specific features of a controlled vocabulary you want. I am working  
> on a
> general typology of knowledge organization systems based on properties
> and features rather instead of types [1] but this is probably still  
> too
> vague and informal. With SKOS we should define a set of semantic,
> formally defined features. Alistair started with the obvious condition
> that should apply for all concept schemes [2].
>
> An additional features of a concept schemes could be that hierarchic
> relations do form a tree - then it's a kind of taxonomy or
> classification scheme and you can use other presentations than in a
> multi-hierarchical concept scheme.
>
> What kind of open source components do you plan?
>
> Greetings,
> Jakob
>
>
> [1] Jakob Voss (2007): Tagging, Folksonomy & Co - Renaissance of  
> Manual
> Indexing? http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0701072
>
> [2] SKOS as a semantic extension of RDFS.
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RdfsSemanticExtension
>
> -- 
> Jakob Vo▀ <jakob.voss@gbv.de>, skype: nichtich
> Verbundzentrale des GBV (VZG) / Common Library Network
> Platz der Goettinger Sieben 1, 37073 G÷ttingen, Germany
> +49 (0)551 39-10242, http://www.gbv.de
>
Received on Wednesday, 28 February 2007 16:27:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:55 GMT