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

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

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 22:15:51 +0200
Message-ID: <4E67D0F7.70502@few.vu.nl>
To: public-xg-lld@w3.org
I've replaced "representing" by "managing", and that will be my only one attempt!
To me "representing" was good enough. If it's just about using URIs to stand for concepts and create no data for them, I'd use "identifying", in fact...

Antoine


> 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.
>
> 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>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 7 September 2011 20:13:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 September 2011 20:14:00 GMT