Re: SKOS Public Working Drafts

I agree.

Mark.

Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:
> Just to say that I think we should draft a modification to the corresponding SKOS Core Guide section in response to Stella's comments below.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Al.
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Stella Dextre Clarke [mailto:sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk]
>>Sent: 07 June 2005 14:11
>>To: Miles, AJ (Alistair)
>>Subject: RE: SKOS Public Working Drafts
>>
>>a) In the discussion about synonyms, you give examples of equivalents
>>that are "all valid" including some quasi-synonyms, some 
>>antonyms, some
>>narrower concepts subsumed in a broader one. Absolutely fine. But it
>>would be good to clarify that this applies only within the bounds of
>>that particular concept scheme and the resources indexed with it. A
>>geologist looking at the examples might be horrified to see 'Basalt'
>>equated with 'Rocks' because a concept scheme designed for 
>>indexing his
>>collections would treat these as narrower and broader terms
>>respectively. This ties up with a point that appears much later,
>>concerning validity of concepts across schemes, and could be 
>>made to tie
>>up with the later mentions of mappings etc.... but maybe that 
>>is getting
>>off the point. The main thing is to clarify that the decisions about
>>equivalence relationships can only be determined for a particular
>>context, where the concept scheme is expected to be applied.
>>
> 
> 

-- 
  Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
        mark@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark

Received on Friday, 1 July 2005 12:33:29 UTC