Re: notes at contepts vs notes at terms

Mark,

Yes, what you makes say makes sense, but only if we are allowed to enter in 
a SKOS structure a non-preferred concept (Scientific research), and link 
that concept to a preferred concept (Research). The term 'Scientific 
research' then becomes a prefLabel for a non-preferred concept, i.e. a 
concept that is specifically excluded from the thesaurus. And if you accept 
that 'Scientific research' labels a non-preferred concept, does that mean 
that an altLabel that is a "lonely term" doesn't label a non-preferred 
concept? How do we make this distinction?

I don't think this is a helpful avenue to pursue. This whole approach is a 
long and very slippery slope, as we discovered within the BS8723 working 
group when we tried to replace 'term' with 'concept'.

Ron

At 18:25 1/11/2005, Mark van Assem wrote:
>Hi Ron,
>
>Thanks for the examples, but I'm not sure I understand. Is every entry 
>below a "relationship of equivalence between different tokens used as 
>altLabels in different languages" ? E.g. does the example below say
>
>>Scientific research
>>USE Research
>>Recherche scientifique
>>EM Recherche
>
>altLabel "Scientific research" equivalent to altLabel "Recherce 
>scientifique" ?
>
>This only makes sense if "Research" and "recherce" are prefLabels for the 
>concept and the concepts are NOT equivalent to each other, right? Else the 
>equivalence between the concepts instead of between the labels does the trick.
>
>Mark.
>
>--
>  Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
>        mark@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark