W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > September 2008

RE: revisions and change in skos

From: Sini, Margherita (KCEW) <Margherita.Sini@fao.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:33:08 +0200
To: De Smedt Johan <Johan.DeSmedt@wkb.be>, Aida Slavic <aida@acorweb.net>, De Smedt Johan <Johan.DeSmedt@wkb.be>
Cc: Rob Tice <rob.tice@k-int.com>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
Message-id: <BA453B6B6B217B4D95AF12DBA0BFB669029DB54E@hqgiex01.fao.org>

What we have done is that we have versioned the full scheme:
- scheme "AGRIS/CARIS Classification scheme"
- scheme "AGRIS/CARIS Classification scheme (from 1975 to 1080) - Deprecated"
They can have different concepts, defined differently.
Hope this helps

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org on behalf of De Smedt Johan 
	Sent: Mon 9/29/2008 11:26 
	To: Aida Slavic; De Smedt Johan 
	Cc: Rob Tice; public-esw-thes@w3.org 
	Subject: RE: revisions and change in skos

	I agree concepts do not die.
	In some historic applications though you want to use the concept
	as a navigation structure.
	So to know what concepts are applicable at a given time, you create
	versions of them as I explained.
	So indeed you want to know old and depricated concepts (and labels).
	However, the application requirement we have is to be able to provide
	concept scheme as it was on a specific time.
	I do not consider this to be in contradiction with the standard.
	Hope this clarifies our use.
	kr, Johan De Smedt.
	-----Original Message-----
	From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
	[mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Aida Slavic
	Sent: Monday, 29 September, 2008 11:14
	To: De Smedt Johan
	Cc: Rob Tice; public-esw-thes@w3.org
	Subject: Re: revisions and change in skos
	What is a 'version concept'? I am not sure is it only a casual use of
	the expression 'concept' instead of 'term' that causes problem - but
	may be worth to be more precise...
	 > - URI are forever
	 > - the skos:Concept may be constraind in time using an
	> period  > - the skos Concept has a creation date. modification date
	and  > version(=introduction version) property  > - semantic
	are not versioned (skos would be more difficult to  > accommodate
	> - Next to semantic relations, change-notes are used on versioned  >
	 >   These change notes contain references to earlier/newr versions
of a
	 > concept
	concept is an idea - this is the level SKOS is supposed to capture by
	assigning an URI to this idea. New concepts can emerge - semantic
	of on concept can split into to or two concepts can be merged to
	a new concept. But in principle concepts themselves don't die,
	disappear, change - so in principle URI is forever.
	For SKOS two concepts from two different KOS schemes are always two
	different concepts between which one can state the level of
	To what degree two vocabularies speaks of the same concepts can be
	stated through alignment/mapping
	- and is defined by the mapping relationship. But even when we state
	that two concepts means the 'same/equivalent' what is meant is that
	their semantic fields overlap sufficiently for us to safely operate
	them as if they are the same.
	Labels are sphere of practical use. Relationship between concepts and
	(labels) is  one to many. In real life have to add constraints to the
	use of labels (preferred term) or change label for practical reasons.
	Labels (i.e.
	relationship between concept and label) can become depricated within
	certain sphere of use and in certain time - but this has nothing to
	with the concept itself.
	To make it more complicated - in principle in information indexing
	retrieval we need to preserve "the knowledge and the history of
	label/concept relationship" - simply because older recorded documents
	may have these labels used in the meaning that was relevant for the
	when document was created.
	Good example are geographical and geo-political entities, historical
	entities such as countries that don't exist anymore, political
	that existed in certain time on which we still have documents. Then
	we need to know old and depricated term(s) for entities we now call
	differently in order to be able to retrieve information on them from
	period when they were called differently.
	I wonder whether my understanding here is correct - but I certainly
	don't want to distract Rob and others trying to a good job here.
Received on Monday, 29 September 2008 09:39:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 13:32:10 UTC