W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > October 2004

RE: candidate and deprecated concepts

From: Carl Mattocks <carlmattocks@checkmi.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 12:44:33 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <49418.216.163.247.1.1097253873.squirrel@webmail.netcarrier.com>
To: "Stella Dextre Clarke" <sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk>
Cc: "'Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) '" <a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk>, "'Leonard Will'" <l.will@willpowerinfo.co.uk>, public-esw-thes@w3.org

Al et al ( ? :-}) :

Since I also believe this type of 'concept evolution' information is
valuable .. for discussion purposes I propose we use -
the notion of UseVersioned (that includes start & end time when version
was current) to identify when a particular 'Thesaurus Concept' is (was)
the preferred 'term' for indexing and /or query purposes;
the notion of BroaderTermSuperceded to identify when the conceptual
framing (the collection of narrower terms) has been modified.


ok ?
carl


<quote who="Stella Dextre Clarke">
>
> No time to explore this in detail. But there is a grey area in the
> definition of "concept", concerning broad concepts and narrow concepts.
> The concept of Tropical products is quite a broad one, broader than
> Tropical fruits and much broader than Bananas. So in one sense it holds
> all those narrower concepts within it, and the broader term becomes the
> preferred term for those narrower concepts. In this sense, the narrower
> concepts are still there, whether or not their presence is revealed by
> providing a non-preferred term. Another way to look at it is to say No,
> you should use Tropical products only in the context of queries or
> documents that deal with the subject broadly. And when narrower
> preferred terms are present, that is what we do say. But when the
> narrower terms are non-preferred, pointing to the broader one, we
> usually allow that broader term to be used for all the narrower concepts
> within its scope. Sorry, I am not articulating this well. It is just a
> pragmatic way of dealing with concepts that works fine when you have
> trained people using the thesaurus. But open to all sorts of hazards
> when the process is automated.
> Must dash. Not sure if that helps.
> 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: Miles, AJ (Alistair) [mailto:A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk]
> Sent: 08 October 2004 15:44
> To: 'Stella Dextre Clarke'; 'Leonard Will'; public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Subject: RE: candidate and deprecated concepts
>
>
> Hi Stella,
>
>> 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".
>
> ... but this *is* to drop a concept, and say 'now use this concept
> instead', surely?
>
>> 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"?
>
> The 'deprecated concepts' are all of the concepts that where previously
> reified in the thesaurus by the presence of a preferred term which is no
> longer preferred.
>
> (I.e. Every preferred term in a thesaurus reifies a concept.
> Non-preferred terms expand upon and refine the meaning of a concept.  If
> you change a term from preferred to non-preferred, you are essentially
> dropping a concept from the thesaurus.)
>
>> 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?
>
> But in the above example, you are suggesting that the concept with
> prefLabel 'Bananas' should be replaced (in indexing metadata) by the
> concept with prefLabel 'Tropical products'.
>
>> So the idea of a "deprecated concept" just feels a bit alien.
>
> I am sensitive to this.  I'm just looking to find a way to model and to
> represent (in RDF) at least some of the features of the change process
> ... I have the idea that this information explicitly captured would be
> valuable.
>
> Al.
>
>>
>> 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/>
>> > -----------------
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>


-- 
Carl Mattocks

co-Chair OASIS (ISO/TS 15000) ebXMLRegistry Semantic Content SC
co-Chair OASIS Business Centric Methodology TC
CEO CHECKMi
v/f (usa) 908 322 8715
www.CHECKMi.com
Semantically Smart Compendiums
(AOL) IM CarlCHECKMi
Received on Friday, 8 October 2004 16:44:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 13:32:04 UTC