RE: Concepts represented by symbols

Hi!
I thought an example from traditional KOS may help.

The situation with symbols in KOS is as follows and I assume
that this can be encoded in different ways (e.g. as an equivalent
term or as an preferred term)

1) classification uses symbols as concepts so if symbol
is used instead of concept there should be provision for the concept
description (as well as its scope note which is not the same)

examples

23	 Religions originating in Indian sub-continent. Hindu religion
  	in the broad sense
 	SN:	Hinduism is extremely difficult to define. Vedism and
 		Brahmanism may be regarded as the religion of the archaic
 		period, and, as a general rule 233 should be used for works on
 		Hinduism
233		Hinduism narrowly
233-442.47	Upavasa. Fasting in Hinduism


(03)	Reference works [description]
	SN:	All books containing information on a number of different
		subjects or on the totality of knowledge [scope note]

[not to mention that symbols in classifications works as semantic
aggregates... i.e. one can connect 233 Hinduism with  (03) Reference works
to get composit 233(03) Reference works in Hinduism or 233-442.47(03)
Reference works on fasting in Hinduism. But this is out of
the scope of this discussion.

b) thesauri may also have symbols attached to descriptors for the
purpose of systematic display...

thesaurus systematic display

H	Mechanical components
HT		Ropes
		SN: A length of strong line

HTC(RT)	Strands

HTN		Fibre ropes
		UF: Textile ropes


thesarus alphabetical display

Fibre ropes	HTN
UF	Textile ropes
BT	Ropes
BT	Textile products

Ropes	HT
SN	A length of strong line...
BT	Mechanical components
NT	Fibre ropes



Aida
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Charles
> McCathieNevile
> Sent: 25 February 2004 10:19
> To: Miles, AJ (Alistair)
> Cc: 'public-esw-thes@w3.org'
> Subject: Re: Concepts represented by symbols
>
>
>
> I think that the symbols are effectively preferredTerms in a particular
> person's vocabulary - it's just that they use what we think of as pictures
> instead of the glyphs that represent "normal" fonts.
>
> So the question is more the range of the "term" properties and
> whether they
> are fixed sa text or can be resources.
>
> It might be interesting to make a subproperty of preferredLabel
> and altLabel
> that is also a subProperty of foaf:depicts, and suggest the use of that
> specifically for symbols, but it might be overkill - it still depends on
> having an appropriate range to start with.
>
> I certainly think it is more important that the symbols are represented as
> first class terms in SKOS than that they are linked to other vocaublaries
> such as FOAF, although I think that is a vry positive step.
> (Providing ways
> of linking to Dublin Core subject vocabularies is more along the lines of
> using foaf:depicts - very helpful but not the core problem).
>
> There are similar possibilities in VoiceXML, where there are a handful of
> options available in an interaction designed to be through voice, and
> developers will define assorted ways of recogninsing from a user's speech
> which of the relevant concepts is being matched. (It is not real natural
> language processing, but more pattern matching in situtations which are
> tightly enough constrained that it looks like it...)
>
> This all gets further complicated by the fact that Unicode are in
> the process
> of encoding a set of these symbols (Bliss) which effectively
> means encoding a
> number of these concepts as single characters which we expect to have
> available in general...
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
>
>
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Miles, AJ (Alistair)  wrote:
>
> >
> >*Chaals:
> >One thing that struck me is that I am not sure if we have set up for the
> >idea that a preferred term for a concept, in a particular
> vocabulary, might
> >be represented by an image or multimedia object rather than a
> text term...
> >
> >I had thought about using the foaf:depiction property to allow an image
> >representation of a concept.  However, reading up on the WWAAC project
> >suggests to me that foaf:depiction may not be enough, and in
> fact we would
> >need something like skos:prefSymbol and skos:altSymbol (which could be
> >sub-props of foaf:depiction??).  Chaals what do you reckon?
> >
> >Al.
> >
>
> Charles McCathieNevile  http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  tel:
> +61 409 134 136
> SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe         fax(france): +33
> 4 92 38 78 22
>  Post:   21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia    or
>  W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2004 06:44:45 UTC