- From: Thomas Bandholtz <thomas@bandholtz.info>
- Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 19:38:59 +0100
- To: "SKOS" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
> Do you think we should add 'taxonomies' to the second sentence, or not :) > ? Yes I think we should do so, for two reasons: (one) There are many taxonomies "in its original sense" (Bernard in his initial posting of this thread) that need to be integrated with thesauri/ontology by applications. We have one case in Germany currently under discussion: networking the "MoReTax" [1] project with the Semantic Network Services [2] in use by the environmental authorities. (two) When people use the term "taxonomy" in a more general meaning (especially in the US), they are talking about what we call concept scheme anyway (e.g. I experienced that when I was working for schlumberger in 2002), and we should not exclude these kind of "taxonomists" from being attracted by our interface. For both reasons we should include "taxonomies" in the list of examples withgout any discussion of its definition. I guess the intro will not try to define what "Thesauri, classification schemes, subject heading schemes, terminologies, glossaries" are as well. Thomas [1] http://www.bgbm.org/BioDivInf/Projects/MoreTax/default.htm [2] http://www.semantic-network.de/home.html?lang=en
Received on Saturday, 5 February 2005 18:39:12 UTC