W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-lld@w3.org > September 2011

Re: Checking "Increase library participation in Semantic Web standardization" rec

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 09:00:22 -0700
Message-ID: <20110907090022.595872zvxkwxszrq@kcoyle.net>
To: public-xg-lld@w3.org
So the issue is that SKOS doesn't manage complex or compound entries  
well. In other words, you can give  a pre-coordinated heading a URI  
(as LC did for LCSH) but there isn't a way to separately code the  
parts of that heading. At least, that's what I understand the problem  
was for LCSH.


Quoting Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>:

> On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 07:55:05AM +0200, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>> It has always amazed me how library people are allergic to any  
>> terminological
>> generalization of "pre-coordination" (it's about assembling different
>> concepts together, no? So a kind of combination...). Anyway, what was
>> bothering me is that the previously written "concept coordination" was
>> looking too vague while denoting a quite precise thing ("concept" here is
>> much more precise than many other occurrences of the same word in  
>> the rest of
>> the text). Having an all-precise wording such as "pre-coordinated subject
>> heading" is also very fine by me!
>> Changes made at
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_recommendations_page_take2&diff=6287&oldid=6269
> Antoine,
> The only problem with this new wording:
>     [SKOS]... does not include mechanisms for representing  
> pre-coordinated subject headings...
> is that "SKOS" (or RDF) does in fact include a "mechanism for representing
> pre-coordinated subject headings": you simply give them URIs!  A wording like
> "representing the component concepts of pre-coordinated subject  
> headings" gets
> closer, but there, too, one could argue that you just give the concepts URIs
> (not that those concepts are necessarily related to the  
> pre-coordinated subject
> headings, if you see what I mean).  In other words, that wording  
> doesn't quite
> capture what you wanted to say, Antoine, with "combining concepts".
> If I can think of a better wording, I'll post it...  Maybe something like
> "representing pre-coordinated subject headings as combinations of component
> concepts"...?
> Tom
> --
> Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>

Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Wednesday, 7 September 2011 16:00:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:58 UTC