W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > January 2009

Re: AW: use-instead notes

From: Leonard Will <L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:47:12 +0000
Message-ID: <umGrDOFgp7aJFApj@mail.willpowerinfo.co.uk>
To: Neubert Joachim <J.Neubert@zbw.eu>
Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 at 21:01:59, Neubert Joachim <J.Neubert@zbw.eu> 
wrote
>Thank you for your comments and suggestions. For our application, I see 
>two crucial points:
>
>- the note should provide the target concept as a data property 
>"within" the note (to support explicit linking, and to make use of the 
>prefLabels of the target concept, instead of a fixed literal string 
>which may soon be out-of-date)

The ISO 25964 model (which you can see attached to my message at 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2008Dec/0003.html>) 
has an explicit relationship between any note and any concept referred 
to within that note. This is intended to cover the situation you 
suggest, so that the note can be updated if the concept referred to is 
changed. As a "target concept" may be referred to in different contexts 
within a note, we thought it more flexible to do this rather than 
requiring a fixed syntax within the note itself.

(I realise that SKOS does not have this link, and I cannot speak for the 
SKOS folk. My first concern is to get the data model right, and then 
hope that SKOS or any other format will implement its structure.)

>- the note must be attached to the source concept (which is, for the 
>special case or aspect identified in the literal part of the note, the 
>wrong one), in order to guide the user to the right one. The user 
>somehow came across this "wrong" concept and needs the hint there - a 
>property of the target concept doesn't help, because there is a danger 
>that the user may not look at that one at all.

In the example you gave, there are two terms representing potential 
"source concepts": "restrictive business practices" and "restrictions on 
market entry". My suggestion was that a user would be referred to the 
preferred term "market entry" by the entries:

restrictive business practices
SN: For restrictions on market entry USE market entry
RT: market entry

and

restrictions on market entry
USE: market entry

Would these not give the user the guidance you require?

>The more general sense, there are notes which are semi-structured - 
>which consist of a data property which links to another concept in 
>combination with some textual restrictions or explanations. (I have 
>seen this pattern also in classifications, with "see"/"use instead" as 
>well as with "see also" hints.) Often, because of the lack of tool 
>support, simple textual scope notes are used for this purpose - 
>resulting in target terms which cannot be validated and may not be 
>valid any longer. Do you know if some treatment for such 
>semi-structured notes is an issue for ISO 25954?

Does my explanation above meet this need without imposing a structure 
within notes, which are almost by definition free text? If a structure 
is needed I would prefer to make it another formal type of relationship, 
not a note, but I'd rather not introduce this complication.

Regards

Leonard
-- 
Willpower Information       (Partners: Dr Leonard D Will, Sheena E Will)
Information Management Consultants              Tel: +44 (0)20 8372 0092
27 Calshot Way, Enfield, Middlesex EN2 7BQ, UK. Fax: +44 (0)870 051 7276
L.Will@Willpowerinfo.co.uk               Sheena.Will@Willpowerinfo.co.uk
---------------- <URL:http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/> -----------------
Received on Monday, 12 January 2009 21:53:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 13:32:11 UTC