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

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

From: Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 12:40:44 -0400
To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Cc: public-xg-lld@w3.org
Message-ID: <20110907164044.GC58910@julius>
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 09:00:22AM -0700, Karen Coyle wrote:
> 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.

Right.  The question of how separate concepts, with separate URIs, can be
"coordinated" in a compound (subject) concept was acknowledged as an issue but
considered out of scope for SKOS.

Tom

> 
> kc
> 
> 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
> 

-- 
Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
Received on Wednesday, 7 September 2011 16:41:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 September 2011 16:41:20 GMT