RE: SKOS and MeSH qualifiers

> From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] On Behalf > Of Robert Watkins
> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 9:53 AM
> To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Subject: SKOS and MeSH qualifiers
> 
> SKOS was brought to my attention yesterday, and I've been looking at it in relation to > the controlled vocabulary with which I have the most experience, namely MeSH (Medical > > Subject Headings). For the most part it is immediately evident how to represent MeSH > > using SKOS, but one aspect of MeSH, qualifiers, makes me want to use SKOS differently > > that what appears right at first glance. For anyone not familiar with MeSH, here is a > > brief description of MeSH qualifiers from the MeSH site (http://www.nlm.nig.gov/mesh/):
> 
>   "There are 83 topical qualifiers used for indexing and cataloging in
>   conjunction with descriptors. Qualifiers afford a convenient means of
>   grouping together those citations which are concerned with a particular
>   aspect of a subject."

This issue comes up in controlled vocabularies like LCSH which uses subdivisions, e.g. field tags 18X, and some thesauri that allow common form type subdivisions.  I agree that it is not immediately evident as to how you should represent these parts of the vocabulary in SKOS.  The collections idea is interesting, but I'm not sure that's what the intent was.  I'd like to hear Miles' thoughts on how to describe them in SKOS since I'm currently working with LC Radio genre that has common form subdivisions.


Andy.

Received on Friday, 8 July 2005 19:42:08 UTC