W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > November 2003

Re: Design Issues (1) - Specialised vocab vs. extensible modular voca bs?

From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 10:48:10 +0000
Message-ID: <3FA783EA.1030008@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair) " <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>


I can't access the Wiki at the moment, and in any case don't know how you want 
comments, so I'll stick to email.

By KOS do you mean "Knowledge Organization Scheme"?
What does that cover? Are you including ontologies in there?

If the answer to the last question is "yes" then I suggest avoiding 3. A common 
core for all different thesaurus and ontology schemes is in danger of being so 
generic as to be little more than raw RDF(S).


Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:

> I've added this issue to the discussion on the RDF Thesaurus wiki page
> <http://esw.w3.org/topic/RdfThesaurus>
> Here is a summary:-
> Issue 1 - Specialised vocab vs. extensible modular vocabs?
> Although most thesauri are pretty similar, there are important variations,
> and many thesauri deviate from the standards. Also, thesauri are very
> similar to other KOS e.g. classification schemes, taxonomis, topic maps. How
> do we cope with this? 
> Option 1 - Define a specialised vocabulary that covers only thesauri that
> comply with the standards. 
> Option 2 - Define a core vocab that captures what is common to all thesauri.
> Then define extension modules to cope with different flavours of thesauri. 
> Option 3 - Define a core vocab that captures what is common to all KOS
> (thesauri, taxonomies, classification schemes, topic maps etc.). Define
> first level extension module for thesauri. Define second level extension for
> flavours. 
> === Comments on Issue 1 === 
> AJM>> 
> What we did previously ( [WWW]early draft of 8.1
> <http://www.w3c.rl.ac.uk/SWAD/deliv81.htm>) was half way between (1) and
> (2). 
> I would like to go for (3), but am prepared to backtrack towards (2), which
> may happen when we hit interop with this and OWL. (3) Would mean we have a
> way of fitting all these KOS together on the semantic web, which would be a
> good thing. 
> Going for (3) means we have to define a core vocab. I've kind of assumed
> this is what we are doing (tell me if you think it's a bad idea), and issues
> below relate first to this core vocab. We need a name for this core vocab,
> so at least we can refer to it. For now, I'm going to call it the core
> vocab. In code, I'm using the prefix soks. Why soks? Short for SuperKOS! Got
> any ideas about a better name? 
> CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> Building R1 Room 1.60
> Fermi Avenue
> Chilton
> Didcot
> Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
> United Kingdom
> Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
> Telephone: +44 (0)1235 445440
Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2003 05:48:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:45:08 UTC