- From: <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 03:19:12 -0400 (EDT)
- To: carlmattocks@checkmi.com
- Cc: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>, "Carl Mattocks" <carlmattocks@checkmi.com>, "Stella Dextre Clarke" <sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk>, "'Miles, AJ (Alistair) '" <a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk>, "'Leonard Will'" <l.will@willpowerinfo.co.uk>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
> > Chaals : > > Clarification accepted with thanks .. but requesting more on the 'forwards > / backwards compatible lumping' > (1) within a single thesaurus > - same set of author(s) / steward(s) thus same purpose > (2) a different thesaurus . > - different (single) set of author(s) / steward(s) different purpose Well, this is the glory of the semantic web (and what makes it seem different to traditional systems). You don't really care who the author is of a second thesaurus - including a thesaurus that is mostly the same as an original one, with a few terms changed. This is a consequence of building a system that can work on the Semantic Web - anyone can say anything about anything, so anyone can make a thesaurus describing a particular use of some collection of concepts. (See the notes about etiquette in my reply to Bernard. Some day soon we will be able to use trust management systems to get stronger control than social etiquette. But the underlying technical stuff stays the same...) As Al suggested, if you define a set of concepts (there is no reason not to include relations between them) at that point, you can then define a thesaurus using those concepts. Or someone else can build a thesaurus using the concepts. So you cover either case - and the technical approach for describing what it means to deprecate the use of a term or concept in a particular thesaurus doesn't mean that the concept itself magically vanishes from the universe. Cheers Chaals
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2004 07:19:12 UTC