W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > January 2011

Re: Ordering concepts in a Tree display

From: Christophe Dupriez <christophe.dupriez@destin.be>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:08:40 +0100
Message-ID: <4D3058E8.2050904@destin.be>
To: Jakob Voss <jakob.voss@gbv.de>
CC: SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Thanks for the information!

What is the most natural:
(1) post-ordering concepts in lists (orderedCollection)
(2) "pre" ordering concepts by assigning them a number (for instance 
begining year for an era, school years for a student grade, number of 
wheels for a vehicle, etc.)
I used method (2) for decades before advent of SKOS.

Does (1) makes sense for this use?
* it introduces a new object in the file (the orderedCollections) that 
must be managed somehow/somewhere.
* how the displaying program knows that the NT concepts must be 
presented following the orderedCollection?
    It is the NTs which are listed, not the orderedCollection!
    (and worse: the concept could be in multiple orderedCollections for 
different purposes than display ordering)
* A previous message proposed to make collections of collections instead 
of using NTs/BTs. Not very practical for general thesauri:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2009Mar/0000.html

With (2), you just add a "rank" property to the concept...

(3) the real "perfect" solution, is to have a rank within the BT/NT 
relation. I suppose no one wants to reify the SKOS relations!

For now, I will create a namespace for a ranking property...

Have a nice w.e.!

Christophe

Le 14/01/2011 13:15, Jakob Voss a écrit :
> Hi Christophe,
>
>> Does anyone have designed a way to specify concept ordering when
>> displaying a tree of concepts?
>
> To ensure *any* ordering, the concept scheme must be encoded with
> http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#collections
>
>> Usually, alphabetical ordering is the best to display narrower concepts
>> of a given concept.
>
> You could also order by number first displaying NTs that have other 
> NRs followed by leafs, or you could order by number of documents, 
> indexed with the concepts, or by skos:notation (if given) etc.
>
> But sure, the most common way of sorting is alphabetical - which 
> depends on the language, by the way! I would always assume, that there 
> is no natural order of elements in RDF data unless it is explicitly 
> stated. But using ordering in RDF is a pain in the a**: In most cases 
> you first need to in infer some entailment and do validity checks on 
> the lists. Otherwise your ordering could turn out to be a tree or to 
> have circles!
>
> Cheers
> Jakob
>
Received on Friday, 14 January 2011 14:09:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 13:32:14 UTC