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

RE: [SKOS] RE: ISSUE-33: GroupingConstructs

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:21:47 +0100
Message-ID: <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D02A90C4C@exchange11.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: "Stella Dextre Clarke" <sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk>, "SWD WG" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Cc: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

Hi Stella,

Thanks so much for this information.

Can I ask you to clarify a small point...

BS 8723-2:2005 gives the following example (abridged) for the use of
node labels to introduce new facets in a systematic display:

agricultural industries

  (people)
  farm managers
  dairy personnel
  shepherds

  (products)
  cereal products
  dairy products

Would the alphabetical display of the same thesaurus show the following:

agricultural industries
  RT farm managers
  RT dairy personnel
  RT shepherds
  RT cereal products
  RT dairy products

...?

Thanks,

Alistair.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stella Dextre Clarke [mailto:sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk]
> Sent: 27 March 2007 11:35
> To: Miles, AJ (Alistair); 'SWD WG'
> Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [SKOS] RE: ISSUE-33: GroupingConstructs
> 
> Alistair,
> I've just been looking at your blog statement at
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/GroupingConstructs
> and I think it is a useful and accurate description of the situation
> we're trying to work through.
> 
> You gave a caution about possible inconsistencies between ISO 2788 and
> BS 8723-2, And I'll now try and cast a little light on that.
> 
> The use of the term "facet indicator" in ISO 2788 was probably a
> mistake. We deliberated over this while developing BS 8723, and spoke
to
> one of the persons who was probably influential in putting this term
> into ISO 2788. After careful consideration, she was able to advise us
to
> drop the term "facet indicator" in this context. BS 8723-2 instead
> speaks of "characteristics of division", in line with current thinking
> on faceted classification (at least as it is practised in the UK!).
> 
> The other small inconsistency you were probably referring to concerns
> the second type of node label, where characteristics of division are
not
> involved. In this second type, the node labels introduce "different
> types of concepts" according to ISO 2788, or "new facets" according to
> BS 8723. I don't see any discrepancy here, since a facet is defined as
a
> "grouping of concepts of the same inherent category".  (It is possible
> that the ISO 2788 committee was trying to avoid getting too deeply
> dependent on the specialist terminology of the faceted classification
> community.)
> 
> So as far as ISO 2788 and BS 8723 are concerned, I believe we have
> pretty good continuity. But the AAT with its guide terms is definitely
> different.  The introduction to the printed thesaurus states that
guide
> terms "are also called node labels or facet indicators by some
> thesauri." Well, that may be true of some thesauri, but not of ISO
2788
> or BS 8723! The way the AAT does things was very carefully planned for
> its own context, subtly different from many information retrieval
> applications and the conventional thesaurus. For example, if you look
at
> the AAT online or in print, you won't find the tags "BT" or "NT"
> anywhere (although you do find "RT" occasionally in the printed
> version). So they nowhere fall into the trap of presenting a guide
term
> as an "NT" of one of the descriptors recommended for indexing.
However,
> they say that guide terms "are used as broader terms to some groups of
> descriptors when there is no broader term to bring the grouping term
> together. ....In addition to serving as broader terms, many guide
terms
> define the characteristics of division by which a listing of narrower
> terms is clustered."
> 
> You could summarise the above by saying that there is a lot of common
> ground between AAT guide terms and ISO 2788 node labels. For example,
> there are two different types of guide terms, and the AAT makes it
> abundantly clear that the guide terms are not to be used for indexing.
> But the requirement for some guide terms to serve as broader terms
> (though only for presentation/grouping purposes, not for indexing) is
an
> important difference.
> 
> I'm not sure how you get SKOS to work well with both approaches
> simultaneously.
> All the best!
> Stella
> 
> 
> *****************************************************
> Stella Dextre Clarke
> Information Consultant
> Luke House, West Hendred, Wantage, Oxon, OX12 8RR, UK
> Tel: 01235-833-298
> Fax: 01235-863-298
> SDClarke@LukeHouse.demon.co.uk
> *****************************************************
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Miles, AJ
> (Alistair)
> Sent: 26 March 2007 13:06
> To: SWD WG
> Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Subject: [SKOS] RE: ISSUE-33: GroupingConstructs
> 
> 
> 
> Guus asked me to suggest an issue to open at the next telecon. I
> suggest:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/33
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Alistair.
> --
> Alistair Miles
> Research Associate
> CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> Building R1 Room 1.60
> Fermi Avenue
> Chilton
> 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: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-swd-wg-request@w3.org]
> > On Behalf Of SWD Issue Tracker
> > Sent: 26 March 2007 12:58
> > To: public-swd-wg@w3.org
> > Subject: ISSUE-33: GroupingConstructs
> >
> >
> >
> > ISSUE-33: GroupingConstructs
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/33
> >
> > Raised by: Alistair Miles
> > On product: SKOS
> >
> > Thesaurus standards describe the use of "node labels" for convenient
> > grouping and display. Many thesauri use node labels in this way.
Some
> > thesauri use "guide
> > terms" for a similar purpose. In some social tagging systems, tags
can
> > be
> > grouped into "bundles".
> >
> > The current vocabulary support in SKOS (called "Collections") for
> these
> > kinds of
> > grouping construct is broken, in that it introduces a contradiction
> into
> > the
> > SKOS specifications.
> >
> > See further information at:
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/GroupingConstructs
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 


--
Alistair Miles
Research Associate
CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Building R1 Room 1.60
Fermi Avenue
Chilton
Didcot
Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
United Kingdom
Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2007 15:22:04 GMT

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