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

Re: who decides on a thesaurus RE: candidate and deprecated concepts

From: Carl Mattocks <carlmattocks@checkmi.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:02:58 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <38305.216.163.247.1.1097586178.squirrel@webmail.netcarrier.com>
To: charles@w3.org
Cc: carlmattocks@checkmi.com, "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>, "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

Chaaals :
... but what if I do care  about compatibility ? Say I want to declare a
'home construction' thesaurus that maintains 'concept synergy' with the
publishers of the Getty Art Thesaurus ..
How do I use your notion of 'forwards / backwards compatible lumping'?


or are you saying that 'forwards / backwards compatible lumping' is only
required for the Skos Core ?

carl

<quote who="charles@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
>
>
>
>


-- 
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 Tuesday, 12 October 2004 13:03:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:45:16 UTC