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

Re: search labels

From: Leonard Will <L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:43:57 +0100
Message-ID: <PUcILuQ9eodBFAm7@willpowerinfo.co.uk>
To: public-esw-thes@w3.org

In message 
<51617.216.163.247.1.1098284488.squirrel@webmail.netcarrier.com> on Wed, 
20 Oct 2004, Carl Mattocks <carlmattocks@checkmi.com> wrote
>
>et Leonard :
>Agreed there should be an explicit declaration of 'non-preferred' labels
>Agreed there are some obvious declarations ' misspellings, abbreviations,
>obsolete terms, terms in another language, quasi-synonyms and so on '
>
>Before we go absolutely granular on these declarations ...
>given all these declarations are highly subjective ..
>can we agree that the 'author' of each 'non-preferred' label be part of
>the declaration ?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "author". As I mentioned:

>> the  way terms would be labelled there would depend on whether you 
>>considered  the result to be a single combined thesaurus or a mapping 
>>thesauri  that remain distinct.

If we are considering a single combined thesaurus, then someone should 
have editorial responsibility for that thesaurus, including the 
acceptance of non-preferred terms in addition to the single preferred 
term for each concept. The source of a candidate term would be one of 
the criteria to be assessed by editor when deciding whether to accept a 
term and what status to give it. Source information could remain 
attached, but probably as a non-public "editorial note".

>That is, rather than declare caveat emptor , ccan we agree there will be
>greater acceptance of 'what is preferred and what is not preferred' when
>the author is known.

The "user" of a thesaurus does not have this choice; they either use the 
thesaurus as it is or submit change suggestions to the editor. If they 
are amending it locally, then they are effectively creating a new 
thesaurus under their own editorial responsibility.

Non-preferred terms are not a big deal - in general you can throw them 
in quite liberally, as they serve only as entry points or pointers to a 
concept, so that you can find its preferred label for use in indexing or 
retrieval. The only argument would be if you think that some of these 
non-preferred terms should represent distinct concepts in their own 
right.

If we are considering a merging or mapping of thesauri which retain 
their distinct identity to a greater or lesser extent, then it would be 
desirable to indicate which thesaurus each term comes from. Is this 
indication of source what you mean by "author"?

Leonard

P.S. Can I gently repeat a request that I made some time ago, that 
people posting to this list don't send duplicates of their messages to 
individuals? It takes a bit of trouble to check each duplicate to ensure 
that it really is a copy,  and then delete it.
-- 
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 Wednesday, 20 October 2004 15:49:00 UTC

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