- From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 12:02:57 +0100
- To: 'Stella Dextre Clarke' <sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
Thanks Stella, It's clear I'm going to have to rethink this. Al. --- 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 Stella > Dextre Clarke > Sent: 07 October 2004 17:42 > To: 'Miles, AJ (Alistair) '; 'Leonard Will'; public-esw-thes@w3.org > Subject: RE: candidate and deprecated concepts > > > > The difference between a deprecated concept and a deprecated term may > not be as clear as you might wish. (And even the word > "deprecated" is a > bit strange to me in the context of thesauri. We usually just say > non-preferred.) It is unusual to drop a concept altogether. > Normally one > provides a lead-in entry pointing to the broader concept that > covers the > scope of the preferred term that is now to be "deprecated". > It is conceivable that if it was decided that a large subject > area with > perhaps hundreds of concepts was now out-of-scope, then all the > corresponding terms might be dropped without trace ( although this is > not usually recommended). The thesaurus might well be renamed or > rebranded to mark the transition. > Much more likely would be to decide that that subject area should be > indexed at a much shallower level of specificity. So, for > example, in a > thesaurus for agricultural products, it might be decided that tropical > products should no longer be covered in detail. Where > previously you had > Bananas, Pineapples, Brazil nuts etc as preferred terms ( with a > hierarchy of BTs such as Tropical fruits all the way up to Tropical > products), you might leave just one term "Tropical products" to cover > all of these. In the thesaurus you would organise entries such as > "Bananas USE Tropical products" - perhaps hundreds of such > entries. Now > where is the "deprecated concept"? All we have is one very > broad concept > taking in tropical products at all levels of detail, and lots of > non-preferred terms. > > So the idea of a "deprecated concept" just feels a bit alien. > > I don't warm, either, to the idea of a concept getting "replaced" by > another one, unless they are so close that you would treat the two as > quasi-synonymous. You are hardly going to replace Bananas with Washing > machines? > > 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 Miles, AJ > (Alistair) > Sent: 07 October 2004 15:42 > To: 'Leonard Will'; 'public-esw-thes@w3.org' > Subject: RE: candidate and deprecated concepts > > > > I'm actually thinking about supporting candidate/deprecated *concepts* > (and not terms), which brings a slightly different set of > requirements. > > Al. > > --- > 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 Leonard Will > > Sent: 07 October 2004 15:20 > > To: 'public-esw-thes@w3.org' > > Subject: Re: candidate and deprecated concepts > > > > > > > > In message > > <350DC7048372D31197F200902773DF4C05E50C7D@exchange11.rl.ac.uk> > > on Thu, 7 > > Oct 2004, "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk> wrote > > > > > >The paradigm (as I understand it) in the thesaurus world is > > for terms (or > > >concepts) to go through three stages: candidate, accepted, > > deprecated (i.e. > > >replaced). > > > > > >We can use dcterms:replaces and dcterms:isReplacedBy to > > describe concept > > >replacements I think (although how to handle replacement > > with combinations > > >is uncertain yet). > > > > If use of a term is discontinued, it is good practice to > > retain it as a > > non-preferred term, with a USE pointer to the term or > combination of > > terms that should be used in future for the concept that it > > represented. > > A history note should indicate when it was used for indexing. > > > > I don't think that you need to distinguish between "deprecated" and > > "non-preferred" terms, which you would express as altLabels. > > As you have > > noted, you do however have to handle combinations such as: > > > > "physics education USE physics AND education" > > > > 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 Friday, 8 October 2004 11:03:30 UTC