RE: Compound concepts in a thesaurus structure

> From: Leonard Will [mailto:L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 4:49 AM
> Subject: 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.

Actually, this thread started with Leonard saying:

> From: Leonard Will [mailto:L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 5:21 AM
>
> 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?

I disagreed with the assessment that it would *significantly* expand the
SKOS project.  To which Leonard replied:

> From: Leonard Will [mailto:L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 10:43 AM
> Subject: Re: Supporting arrays of concepts
> 
> It seems to me to be a much more complex job for SKOS to try to create 
> a system that would incorporate rules for creating these compound 
> strings.

I then pointed out that to encode LCSH in SKOS doesn't mean you have to
incorporate the rules for how LCSH, or any other vocabulary, builds compound
concepts.  The "whole" compound string *is* the concept and there isn't
necessarily a BT/NT/RT relationship between the predefined part and what was
composed.  The whole term should be taken as the concept and its BT/NT/RT
relationship is to be taken in the context of all the other predefined, e.g.
enumerated, or compound strings in the vocabulary.

The point here is that whether the vocabulary *enumerates* or allows
synthesis of new concepts the "whole" string *is* the concept and should be
used as the skos:prefLabel within skos:Concept.  A thesaurus could have
constructed concepts just like DDC, LCSH, UDC, etc., if it has the notion of
tables.  For example, the thesaurus allows you to add a geographic component
from a table to the enumerated list of concepts.  While the thesaurus
*could* enumerate all the possibilities its probably more efficient to
specify a table and have appropriate notes say when the table should be
used.  This use of tables is no different from how DDC, LCSH, UDC, etc.
build new concepts.  Regardless, the constructed string is a new concept,
e.g. Cats [enumerated] vs. Cats--United States [constructed] vs.
Cats--France [constructed].

This means there is *no* impact on SKOS.  Hence, my disagreement with
Leonard's original assessment that it would *expand* the scope of the SKOS
project.  Hope this clears things up...


Andy.

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

Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2004 09:25:49 UTC