W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > June 2005

RE: SKOS Public Working Drafts

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:15:45 +0100
Message-ID: <F5839D944C66C049BDB45F4C1E3DF89DEE9DFD@exchange31.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

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.
> 
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2005 11:15:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:45:20 UTC