- From: Robert Watkins <rwatkins@foo-bar.org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 08:52:03 -0400
- To: Leonard Will <L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk>
- cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Leonard Will wrote: > Terms with subdivisions or MeSH-type "qualifiers" are really > pre-coordinated strings made up of two or more thesaurus concepts. The > syntax and the allowed combinations for these strings would normally be > incorporated in rules for pre-coordination which are separate from the > elementary concepts and their labels in the thesaurus itself. > > [ snipped ] > > I would suggest that all concepts such as these should be recorded > independently as separate entries in the thesaurus and be available for > assignment to documents in addition to other "subject" terms. > > [ snipped ] > Perhaps I am missing something otherwise self-evident in Leonard Will's assessment of this issue, but with MeSH, the "qualifiers" are not assigned to documents but to specific terms assigned to a document. For example, a document might be indexed with the following MeSH terms, with the appropriate qualifiers following in brackets: Articulation Disorders [etiology;therapy] Down Syndrome [complications] Leukemia, Lymphocytic, Acute [complications;drug therapy;pathology] As such, the document could certainly be found by searching for the qualifier "complications", but a post-coordinated search for "Articulation Disorders" restricted by the MeSH qualifier "complications" would be inappropriate. If this can be done in SKOS using the concepts of facets (owl:Restriction?) then so much the better, but I don't have enough experience to see it. -- Robert -------------------- Robert Watkins rwatkins@foo-bar.org --------------------
Received on Monday, 11 July 2005 13:42:28 UTC