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

Re: [SKOS] presentation information and thesaurus displays (views) (was RE: [SKOS] ISSUE-33 "Minimal Fix" Proposal)

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:17:05 +0200
Message-ID: <46820EF1.60603@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

Hello,

I think the page brings useful information regarding what's in the scope 
of SKOS core and what is not. I find the examples in the end especially 
useful. +1 for motivating the solution to ISSUE-33

Then (but perhaps it's for later ISSUE) the stupid questions, of course:
- why should SKOS provide with the construct for collections, if these 
are mainly for display purposes?
- if we consider that providing with skos:Collection is important 
enough, why proposing uses a half-baked solution with the Collection 
class but not the proper property (different from skos:broader) to link 
its instances to the concept(s) they are attached to?

Antoine
> Hi all,
>
>   
>> [1] 
>> <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/Semantics/Grouping?action=recall&rev=4>
>> 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.
>>     
>
> As background to discussion of these further issues, I have written a wiki page on "presentation information" and defining the scope of SKOS:
>
> <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/PresentationInformation>
>
> 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 Wednesday, 27 June 2007 07:48:50 GMT

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