RE: Supporting arrays of concepts

I agree with Andy's response. We have to be able to support ways of
working with the commonly used vocabularies. However, DDC and LCSH are
not thesauri. There are some fundamental differences in the assumptions
humans make when applying these things. It seems to me that SKOS was
developed with standard thesauri in mind, and may need some add-ons to
work across different types of vocabulary.
Stella

*****************************************************
Stella Dextre Clarke
Information Consultant
Luke House, West Hendred, Wantage, Oxon, OX12 8RR, UK
Tel: 01235-833-298
Fax: 01235-863-298
SDClarke@LukeHouse.demon.co.uk
*****************************************************



-----Original Message-----
From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Houghton,Andrew
Sent: 10 May 2004 21:13
To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Subject: RE: Supporting arrays of concepts



 

> From: Leonard Will [mailto:L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk]
> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 2:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Supporting arrays of concepts
> 
> Should we, though, be creating a structure that allows
> encoding of inconsistent and illogical structures just 
> because they occur in some existing thesauri? Library of 
> Congress Subject Headings has some thesaural elements, but 
> nobody would argue that it conforms to thesaurus standards. 
> Should we be able to encode it in RDF?

We are trying to encode AAT, LCSH, MeSH and DDC in SKOS.
So my answer to these questions is that SKOS needs to
find a way to handle these things.  There are a wealth
of widely used vocabularies today and to create a new
Semantic Web data format that cannot take advantage of
these vocabularies seems, to me, to be problematic.


Andy.

Andrew Houghton, OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
http://www.oclc.org/about/
http://www.oclc.org/research/staff/houghton.htm

Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2004 03:51:17 UTC