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

Re: UMTHES and SKOS-XL

From: Thomas Bandholtz <thomas.bandholtz@innoq.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:22:27 +0200
Message-ID: <4ADF6D83.4070604@innoq.com>
To: Stella Dextre Clarke <stella@lukehouse.org>
CC: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk
Hi Stella,

remember Leonard Will's posting about "revising the ISO standard for
thesauri for information retrieval" from Feb this year?
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2009Feb/0033.html
with a huge diagram attached.
Would be curious what has happened since then.

Leonard, still on the line?

Something else regarding my previous post. I was too eager to go out for
dinner, so I made a misleading error in this turtle syntax example:
#not recommended (and not what I wanted to write)
:4711 rdf:type skos:Concept;
   skos:prefLabel "waste water";
   skos:prefLabel "waste waters";
   skos:prefLabel "wastewater";
   skos:prefLabel "wastewaters";
   skos:altLabel "sewage".

This is not what i wanted to say. Should read as:

#not recommended:
:4711 rdf:type skos:Concept;
   skos:prefLabel "waste water";
   skos:altLabel "waste waters";
   skos:altLabel "wastewater";
   skos:altLabel "wastewaters";
   skos:altLabel "sewage".

Too silly!  Excuse me for such a confusion, i was somehow ... hungry!
Damn copy&paste in a hurry!

Best regards,
Thomas

> Thomas Bandholtz wrote:
>
>> Secondly, we need this stuff to support automated indexing of full
>> text documents. Machine need to be enabled to detect the Concepts
>> behind this weird mess of character strings that makes a document
>> (more on this in the ecoterm presentation).
> Another interesting point. I sometimes hear people complain that
> ISO2788-compliant thesauri do not help enough with retrieval from full
> text of documents that have not been humanly indexed. This is hardly
> surprising, since they were designed to support retrieval of documents
> indexed with that same vocabulary. The same is true of BS 8723-2 and
> the forthcoming ISO 25964-1.
>
> When people want to use a thesaurus for full text retrieval, I
> sometimes suggest they could improve the results by stripping the
> qualifiers off the non-preferred terms. But more could be done to
> enhance the results of that process, by including inflectional forms,
> term weighting, Boolean expressions, additional less reliable
> clue-words, etc, and of course dropping the idea of admitting the
> clue-words as non-preferred synonyms with  reciprocal relationships.
>
> I sometimes wonder if a future revised version of BS 8723 or ISO 25964
> should include some recommendations to this effect. What do you think?
>
> Stella
>
> *****************************************************
> Stella Dextre Clarke
> Information Consultant
> Luke House, West Hendred, Wantage, OX12 8RR, UK
> Tel: 01235-833-298
> Fax: 01235-863-298
> stella@lukehouse.org
> *****************************************************
>
>


-- 
Thomas Bandholtz, thomas.bandholtz@innoq.com, http://www.innoq.com 
innoQ Deutschland GmbH, Halskestr. 17, D-40880 Ratingen, Germany
Phone: +49 228 9288490 Mobile: +49 178 4049387 Fax: +49 228 9288491
Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 20:23:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:39:04 GMT