- From: Carl Mattocks <carlmattocks@checkmi.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:39:17 -0400 (EDT)
- To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
et Bernard : Seeking clarification ... are we agreeing that (1) An URI is not always a concept (whether or not a fragment identifier is used) (2) A Knowledge Organization /Organisation System Concept in a controlled vocabulary is always a member of a set (3) A Knowledge Organization /Organisation System Concept in a controlled vocabulary which is a thesaurus always participates in one BT / NT relationship Thus a Thesaurus Concept 'scheme identifier' must identify a BT / NT relationship in a set ? carl <quote who="Bernard Vatant"> > > > Leonard > >> I think it would be difficult to publish a set a concepts "in the >> abstract" without any implicit relationships between them, whether you >> call this a "scheme" or not. The problem is that the usual way of >> defining a concept is to say what broader concept it is a member of, and >> then specify the ways in which it is differentiated from other members >> of that broader concept. >> >> E.g. "A child is_a person less than 18 years old" >> "An insect is_an invertebrate with a jointed body and six legs" >> "Physics is_a science which deals with matter and energy" >> >> Thus in the act of defining concepts you define hierarchical >> relationships to other concepts. You may be able to specify additional >> relationships of all kinds between concepts to make a more complex >> scheme, but that is additonal to the hierarchy inherent in the >> definitions. > > I could not agree more, and we are here at the core of the identification > vs definition > issue. > > Main aspects of this issue are: > > 1. How do I make distinct in a concept scheme the "defining properties" > that one cannot > remove without changing somehow the concept, from other "added > properties"? > > 2. If a concept is *identified* by a URI in a concept scheme, is it > correct to say that it > is *defined* by this same URI providing you can get through it some > non-ambiguous > information resource about the concept defining properties (subject > identifier vs subject > indicator again ...) > > 3. If a concept identifier is re-used in another scheme, what should be > the > requirements/recommendations concerning the commitment of the re-user to > the initial > definition of the concept? > > > Bernard Vatant > Senior Consultant > Knowledge Engineering > Mondeca - www.mondeca.com > bernard.vatant@mondeca.com > > > > > > > > -- 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 Monday, 11 October 2004 21:39:18 UTC