Extensibility and coverage of SKOS

Hi all,

Just a short note to say, if you look at the migration guidelines doc [1]
(which is still only half baked) I try to outline an approach to coping with
variation in KOS structure without compromising the benefits of
standardisation.

Basically the idea is that, when confronted with a thesaurus that has some
non-standard features, you take the SKOS-Core schema, and build some
extensions via sub-class and sub-property statements which capture the
unique non-standard features of the thesaurus.  However, because all classes
and properties of the extended schema are linked to classes and properties
of the SKOS-Core schema, the extension can be reduced to a SKOS-Core
representation, and is thus still compatible with other SKOS based schemas
and apps.

I.e. you can have your cake and eat it (!!)  

It's explained a bit better in [1], with GEMET as a worked example.  This
approach I think works well for thesauri such as GEMET, which are not too
far off the beaten track as far as thesauri go.  However, whether this
approach will work for really quirky things like MeSH and AAT, and other
styles of scheme such as LCSH and DDC, is something I'm looking forward to
finding out.

Yours,

Al.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/1.0/migrate/ 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Leonard Will
> Sent: 11 May 2004 10:21
> To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Supporting arrays of concepts
> 
> 
> 
> In message <000001c4372c$ab140080$0402a8c0@DELL> on Tue, 11 May 2004, 
> Stella Dextre Clarke <sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> >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.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
> >On Behalf Of Houghton,Andrew
> >Sent: 10 May 2004 21:13
> >
> >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.
> 
> OK, I agree that it would be useful to have a mechanism for encoding 
> pre-coordinate classification schemes and subject indexing 
> strings, and 
> I do like the idea of treating them in an integrated way that works 
> smoothly with the encoding of thesaurus structures.  It will mean a 
> significant expansion of the project, though. Is it currently 
> within its 
> scope?
> 
> The difficulty of applying this to existing schemes is that computer 
> encoding requires the development and application of strict and 
> consistent rules and algorithms, and accommodating existing 
> schemes may 
> require many messy exceptions and special provisions. As Andy says, 
> though, these schemes are so widely used that we have to accommodate 
> them.
> 
> My suggestion for dealing with the AAT "guide terms" was an 
> attempt to 
> interpret that thesaurus in a way that the SKOS encoding could 
> accommodate, without distorting either.
> 
> Leonard
> 
> -- 
> Willpower Information       (Partners: Dr Leonard D Will, 
> Sheena E Will)
> Information Management Consultants              Tel: +44 
> (0)20 8372 0092
> 27 Calshot Way, Enfield, Middlesex EN2 7BQ, UK. Fax: +44 
> (0)870 051 7276
> L.Will@Willpowerinfo.co.uk               
> Sheena.Will@Willpowerinfo.co.uk
> ---------------- <URL:http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/> 
> -----------------
>

Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2004 07:12:23 UTC