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

Re: [SKOS] ISSUE-33 "Minimal Fix" Proposal

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:05:08 +0200
Message-ID: <46817F84.1020800@few.vu.nl>
To: "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
CC: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, public-esw-thes@w3.org

Hi,
> Hi all,
>
> This email proposes a way forward for [ISSUE-33] "GroupingInConceptHierarchies".
>
> I have proposed the following section of the SKOS Semantics wiki draft as a resolution for this issue:
>
> [1] <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/Semantics/Grouping?action=recall&rev=4>
>
> This is section of the SKOS Semantics wiki draft, which defines a semantics for skos:Collection, skos:OrderedCollection, skos:member and skos:memberList.
>
> N.B. the semantics are such that the use of a skos:Collection with skos:narrower, skos:broader or skos:related will lead to an inconsistency if the domain or range of these properties is skos:Concept, because skos:Collection is disjoint with skos:Concept. The SKOS Primer will of course have to present examples that are consistent with the semantics, and explain how to avoid an inconsistency.
>
> I would like to suggest that the Working Group accept this resolution, because it fixes the basic contradiction in the previous specifications, regarding the use of skos:Collection with skos:broader or skos:narrower, that [ISSUE-33] captures.
>   
+1
> One open question is, if we accept this resolution, then how will applications generate systematic (hierarchical) displays (views) including node labels?
>
> I would like to suggest that the Working Group accept [1] as a resolution of [ISSUE-33], then raise further issues concerning the generation and transfer of various different display types, including alphabetical and systematic thesaurus displays.
>   
+1 This solves for now the objection I had raised before :-)

Antoine

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2007May/0010.html
> Cheers,
>
> Alistair.
>
> [ISSUE-33] <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/33>
>
> --
> Alistair Miles
> Research Associate
> Science and Technology Facilities Council
> Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> Harwell Science and Innovation Campus
> Didcot
> Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
> United Kingdom
> Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
> Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
> Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440  
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl] 
>> Sent: 15 June 2007 15:27
>> To: Miles, AJ (Alistair)
>> Cc: SWD WG; public-esw-thes@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: [SKOS] ISSUE-33 "Minimal Fix" Proposal
>>
>> Thanks for the answer. They confirm everything
>>     
>>>> - relying on sophisticated algorithm to generate hierarchies for 
>>>> grouping-aware applications
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Yes and no. The fact is that a typical "systematic display" 
>>>       
>> of a thesaurus or classification scheme incorporates a 
>> certain amount of "presentational" information - information 
>> about how to lay things out in 2 dimensions. I believe it 
>> should be out of scope for SKOS to convey presentational 
>> information. This means that, in order to fully convey a 
>> systematic presentation of a thesaurus or classification 
>> scheme, you might need something other than SKOS.
>>     
>>> However, in the absence of any presentational information, 
>>>       
>> there could 
>>     
>>> be a default method of constructing a systematic display. To handle 
>>> SKOS grouping constructs, this would require an algorithm which is 
>>> *fairly* sophisticated - certainly not straightforward to a novice 
>>> hacker. The onus is on me to provide a reference implementation :)
>>>   
>>>       
>> my mistake, "generate" should have been "display"
>>     
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> - asking thesaurus builders to create explicit 
>>>>         
>> broader/narrower links 
>>     
>>>> between the concept generalizing the collection and the concepts 
>>>> included in the collection (e.g.
>>>> ex:milk skos:narrower ex:cowmilk),
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> therefore ignoring the 
>>>> level of the grouping in the explicitation of the 
>>>>         
>> conceptual hierarchy
>>     
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> I'm not sure what you mean by this.
>>>   
>>>       
>> That we you design the conceptual hierarchy, you might have 
>> some 'mental 
>> image' of it in your head, influenced by the display of other 
>> thesauri. 
>> But you should ignore this image, and build the conceptual link not 
>> considering the grouping node.
>>
>> Antoine
>>
>>     
>
>
>   
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 21:05:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:58 GMT