- From: Leonard Will <L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:43:57 +0100
- 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