- From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:47:33 -0000
- To: 'Ron Davies' <ron@rondavies.be>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
Hi Ron, Taking the last bit first: >In an SKOS environment, would they do the same whether they are using >an 'official' URI or the indirect method of reference? The issue you raise I think is completely orthogonal to the mechanism of indentification being used (i.e. the question remains the same irrespective of whether directly assigned URIs or PSIs or some other indirect reference mechanism has been used). On the question of (a) (b) or (c) I agree with Richard, go for (c). What the SKOS Mapping vocabulary [1] in it's current form supports is the ability to express mappings between the original source concepts, and newly described concepts based on modifications of the originals. The currently supported mapping types are: exact, inexact [major, minor], partial [broad, narrow]. SKOS Mapping hasn't had anywhere near the same amount of attention or development and testing that SKOS Core has (everything is 'unstable'), in fact it's in a rather scruffy state and is missing some bits. I think it needs a major review, in addition to tidying up. I hope we can take a second look at it once the major features of SKOS Core are established. Al. [1] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/mapping/spec/ --- Alistair Miles Research Associate CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Building R1 Room 1.60 Fermi Avenue Chilton Didcot Oxfordshire OX11 0QX United Kingdom Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440 -----Original Message----- From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Ron Davies Sent: 11 November 2004 13:16 To: public-esw-thes@w3.org Subject: RE: Global concept identification and reference I have a question related to the points raised by Andrew Houghton and Aida Slavic. In fact this is (I think) an extension of the question Aida asked. Organizations adopting a widely-used thesaurus, like the OECD Macrothesarus, nearly always make some changes to it so that it meets local needs. They have bought the thesaurus or obtained it legally, and as long as the changes are not massive, copyright has never to my knowledge been an issue in this regard: they are not re-publishing the thesaurus, just using it in their application. They state publicly that they use the original thesaurus (say the Macrothesaurus), though they will likely provide a human-readable note to a user saying what has been changed for the local application. If now, however, in a semantic web environment, they need to expose their concepts with an identifier, what identifier do they use for the new or modified concepts they have introduced, and for the old ones that they have taken over? a) Should they use an identifier that identifies the original thesaurus as the source for _all_ concepts, even though strictly speaking this isn't true, and an application relying on the fact that they do may be in for some surprises? b) Do they create a new identifier for their "version" of the thesaurus and use this even for concepts which are the same in the local version as they are in the standard version? c) Do they use an identifier to the original thesaurus for the terms that have not changed and use an identifier for their local version for the terms that have been modified or added? If so, how does an application discover what the local modifications are? Thanks, Ron ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Davies Information and documentation systems consultant Av. Baden-Powell 1 Bte 2, 1200 Brussels, Belgium Email: ron(at)rondavies.be Tel: +32 (0)2 770 33 51 GSM: +32 (0)484 502 393
Received on Thursday, 11 November 2004 15:48:08 UTC