W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > March 2008

Re: ISSUE 77 and postcoordination [and ISSUE-40!]

From: Alasdair J G Gray <agray@dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:16:35 +0000
Message-ID: <47DF9683.8070700@dcs.gla.ac.uk>
To: Aida Slavic <aida@acorweb.net>
CC: Jakob Voss <jakob.voss@gbv.de>, public-esw-thes@w3.org, public-swd-wg@w3.org
Hi All,

Aida Slavic wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> > Sure. It's the application scenario that matters but we have different
> > scenarios in mind.
> > I raised ISSUE 77 and 40 because I stumbled upon two application
> > scenarios that's I'd like to encode with SKOS:
> >
> > 1. Indexing: How do you encode the statement "Person <P> indexed
> > resource <R> with concepts <C1> and <C2>"?
>
> IMHO this has nothing to do with SKOS or with vocabulary as such.
> In all systems that I know of, this information is normally encoded in
> meta-metadata - or administrative metadata. It is not part of vocabulary
> or resource. These meta-metadata hardly have any value outside local
> system scenario and many cataloguing agencies never export it or include
> it in the process of information exchange. You have to come up with some
> good argument why this information would be relevant for resource 
> discovery.
> Authority of metadata is usually established through institutions not
> through individuals.
>
I agree with this point of view: keep SKOS for capturing the generic 
features of the KOS and then allow systems to apply the KOS as they see 
fit. However, indications on how this can be achieved and whether any 
additional machinery are required should be considered, but in the end, 
the document which publishes the KOS should be kept focused on that one 
topic so that it can be easily reused.
>
>
> > 2. Mapping: How do you encode the statement "Concept <A> in vocabulary
> > <X> has the same meaning as Concept <B> and <C> together (coordinated)
> > in vocabulary <Y>"?
>
> There are other people here better informed of inter vocabulary
> relationships.
> Vocabulary <X> does not care how vocabulary <Y> expresses concepts and
> vice versa. It is an external, third  agency that is concerned with
> this. If I understand correctly this implies that you would need a third
> i.e. mapping vocabulary which you can call <Z>.
>
> As mapping can be done as direct mapping or through intermediary
> vocabulary (pivot/spine vocabulary) <W>. So this may be published as
> vocabulary crosswalks <X => W> and <Y =>W>.
>
I don't think that approach works. In some cases, you will still need 
some way of saying that <A> exactMatch (<B> AND <C>). This is an 
important area which is lacking from the current SKOS reference.

Cheers,

Alasdair
>
>
> If this is not meant to be solved through equivalency relationships than
>   maybe some subset or extension of SKOS can be developed to handle this.
>
> aida
>
>
>

-- 
Dr Alasdair J G Gray
http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~agray/

Explicator project 
http://explicator.dcs.gla.ac.uk/

Office: F161
Tel: 	+44 141 330 6292

Postal: Computing Science,
	17 Lilybank Gardens,
	University of Glasgow,
	Glasgow,
	G12 8QQ, UK.
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2008 10:17:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 18 March 2008 10:17:54 GMT