- From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 12:27:55 -0000
- To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Hi all, > Personally, if I were King of the Forest, I would ban the word > "scheme". For one thing, it is simply too close to "schema", > which is almost as bad, and in overlapping but nonetheless > different ways. At a minimum, we must acknowledge that > in practice, people get them confused all the time, myself > included. Personally I have never been quite happy with the word 'scheme' myself, but it was the best thing we had at the time, and was inspired by the dublin core class dc:SubjectScheme. I think it's too late to change the URI, but if anyone has any suggestions about better names for this thing, I'd love to hear them (e.g. 'system', 'schedule' ... ?). > > Assuming we have to use "scheme"...: > > -- I like Aida's suggestion for "subject heading systems". > > -- In http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/glossary.htm, there is no > definition of "scheme" itself, though there is (analogously) > a definition for "schedule" (which, however, I would have > expected to read "a SET of terms..."). > > > I think you have to call it a "concept scheme" rather than > a "conceptual > > scheme", because the latter form makes it sound as though > it is not a > > real scheme, just a conceptual one . . . > > -- Yes. I had been vaguely uneasy with the notion that > "concept" or "conceptual" could be used interchangeably > here, and this comment puts the finger on why. I would > also prefer just "concept scheme" (assuming "scheme" > is used at all). Yep, I agree, will scrub 'conceptual scheme' from the guide. Cheers, Al.
Received on Monday, 7 February 2005 12:28:40 UTC