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

Re: general type of controlled vocabulary

From: Tessa Sullivan <tessa@io.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:08:36 -0500
Message-ID: <45E5EF54.2060206@io.com>
To: public-esw-thes@w3.org

I have just started to study this so I have not yet read some of the 
central literature (e.g. Hodges) on this topic. But I have discussed 
this at length with faculty & other doctoral students here at Univ North 

That caveat aside, I rather like the typology in the NISO Z39.19 
standard -- Guidelines for the Construction, Format and Management of 
Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies.  They have 4 types and a list of 
criteria for them:

    Ambiguity Control
Synonym ring
    synonym control
    Ambiguity Control
    synonym control
    Hierarchical relationships
    Ambiguity Control
    synonym control
    Hierarchical relationships
    Associative relationships

And I found the definitions for the different criteria well developed 
and easy to understand.


Hope this helps,

Tessa Sullivan
Ph.D student & Metadata Research Center Fellow
	School of Information and Library Sciences
	University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Luis Bermudez wrote:
> 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 21:08:11 GMT

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