Re: Compound concepts in a thesaurus structure

In message <000501c437fb$fea39970$0402a8c0@DELL> on Wed, 12 May 2004, 
Stella Dextre Clarke <sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
>Maybe I am missing the point here, but we seem to have jumped from
>talking about exchanging vocabulary data to the exchange of catalogue
>data. I thought SKOS was addressing the former, but not the latter. The
>relationships in a thesaurus are supposed to be paradigmatic, not
>syntagmatic. But a catalogue or index typically sets up syntagmatic
>relationships ( i.e. the sort to be found in the context of one
>particular document), which leads us into the difficulty outlined by
>Leonard.

I think that Andy is thinking of SKOS as maintaining a subject authority 
file, including all the simple and compound concepts that are either 
enumerated in schedules or that have been used in creating catalogue 
entries. This is very different from a thesaurus, as you say, and adds a 
whole new dimension of complexity. If this is to be done I think it 
would be better to keep the thesaurus and the subject authority file in 
separate databases.

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 Wednesday, 12 May 2004 04:49:01 UTC