RE: notes at concepts vs notes at terms

Hi all,

This is a general request to all members of this list: if you have a specific requirement for notes to be associated with non-preferred terms, could you please describe your requirements in as much detail as possible in an email to this list.

Thanks to Phil Carlisle for providing examples from English Heritage thesauri.

Yours,

Al.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: CARLISLE, Phil [mailto:Philip.Carlisle@english-heritage.org.uk]
> Sent: 04 August 2005 14:43
> To: Miles, AJ (Alistair); public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Cc: BYRNE, Kieran
> Subject: RE: notes at concepts vs notes at terms
> 
> 
> Hi Al et al
> 
> We have examples of non-preferred terms (non-descriptors) 
> which have scope notes. These are mainly used to give 
> guidance as to which preferred term (descriptor) to use eg.
> 
> Grinding Mill                                      N
> Use GRINDING HOUSE for a place material is crushed and 
> GRINDERY for a place where metal objects are sharpened.
> 
> In all our thesauri we have about 730 instances of 
> non-preferred terms which have scope notes.
> 
> As far as I'm aware the British standard does not stipulate 
> that you cannot attach a scope note to a non-preferred term.
> Unfortunately none of these scope notes appear on the web 
> version of our thesauri which is a shame but I can supply pdf 
> examples if anyone wants to view them.
> 
> Phil
> 
> Phil Carlisle
> Data Standards Supervisor
> National Monuments Record Centre
> Kemble Drive 
> Swindon
> SN2 2GZ
> +44 (0)1793 414824
>  
> 
> The information contained within this e-mail is confidential 
> and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee only. 
> If you have received the e-mail in error, please inform the 
> sender and delete it from your system. The contents of this 
> e-mail must not be disclosed to anyone else or copied without 
> the sender's consent.
> 
> Any views and opinions expressed in this message are those of 
> the author and do not necessarily reflect those of English 
> Heritage. English Heritage will not take any responsibility 
> for the views of the author.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Miles, 
> AJ (Alistair)
> Sent: 04 August 2005 13:34
> To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Subject: notes at concepts vs notes at terms
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Does anyone have some concrete examples of notes (of any 
> type) attached to non-preferred terms in a thesaurus?  Could 
> they post them to this list?  
> 
> As Ron says [1] SKOS Core allows note properties to be 
> attached only to concepts.  This presents a basic problem for 
> migration of existing thesauri to a SKOS Core representation, 
> where non-preferred terms may have a 'source', 'definition', 
> 'history note', 'editorial note' or other.  I'm writing this 
> email to begin a discussion of this issue, as it is a 
> significant (and deliberate) point of divergence between SKOS 
> Core and current thesaurus development practice.  I hope that 
> we can ultimately reach a common position, although I expect 
> the resolution of this issue to take some time (hence the 
> nice gentle introduction I'm giving here :)
> 
> So, the decision to restrict all SKOS Core note properties to 
> use with concepts only was deliberate, taken knowing full 
> well that this would prevent a small hurdle to migration of 
> some existing thesauri.  I'm going to try and justify that 
> decision here, as a basis for further discussion. 
> 
> I think there is a basic ambiguity in BS8723 and other 
> standards regarding some note properties. 
> 
> E.g. BS8723-2:200X section 6.1.2.5 'Definitions' (without 
> directly quoting to avoid copyright infringement) states 
> that: a full dictionary definition is not usually necessary 
> to clarify how a descriptor is intended to be used, however 
> if a definition is wanted then a separate note field should 
> be used to avoid confusion with scope notes.  The 
> definition's source should also be recorded with the 
> definition itself.
> 
> The example given is something like:
> 
> illuminations
> DEF The designs, etc. employed in the embellishment of 
> writing with colors (OED).
> 
> The first interesting thing to note is that BS8723 seems to 
> imply that only descriptors should be given definitions, 
> although that is not explicitly stated.  Section 6.1.2.6 
> 'History notes' BS8723 similarly seems to imply that history 
> notes should only be used with descriptors, although again 
> this is not explicitly stated.  I think BS8723 should be 
> categorical on this point, one way or the other.
> 
> The basic ambiguity I was referring to is this: under the 
> BS8723 pattern as above it is ambiguous whether the 
> definition note describes the special meaning associated with 
> the term 'illuminations' in the context of the given 
> controlled vocabulary, or whether it describes the meaning 
> commonly attributed to the term 'illuminations' in the 
> context of normal discourse (which OED assumes) or some other 
> (unspecified?) context.
> 
> SKOS Core deliberately attempts to preclude this type of 
> confusion by allowing you to only ever attach a definition to 
> a concept (which may of course have one or more lexical 
> labels).  It can still be meaningful to attribute the source 
> of a definition, but at least it is clear what the definition 
> note is defining.  E.g. (notation3) ...
> 
> ex:conceptA a skos:Concept;
>   skos:prefLabel 'Illuminations'@en;
>   skos:definition [
>     rdf:value 'The designs, etc. employed in the 
> embellishment of writing with colors.';
>     dc:source 'OED';
>   ];
> .
> 
> My fundamental point is this: in possibly all the cases I've 
> seen so far (and I'm entirely open to counter-examples), 
> notes attached to non-preferred terms really ought to be 
> attached to the corresponding concept (even if they are 
> ultimately presented to users otherwise), because they 
> describe information about the whole indexing unit.  BS8723 
> seems to support this by implying that scope notes, 
> definitions and history notes only ever be attached to 
> descriptors (effectively to concepts), and by only ever 
> giving examples of such.  
> 
> If you absolutely must have notes describing an alternative 
> label, we could allow something like e.g. ...
> 
> ex:conceptA a skos:Concept;
>   skos:prefLabel 'Animals';
>   skos:altLabel 'Fauna';
>   skos:editorialNote [
>     skos:onLbl 'Fauna';
>     rdf:value 'Check with Mr.X. whether to keep "Fauna".'; 
>   ];
> .
> 
> ... with the 'skos:onLbl' property  (or something similary) 
> being an addition to SKOS Core.  This pattern could also be a 
> way of handling legacy?
> 
> Anyway, I think that'll do for starters :)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Al.
> 
> 
> [1] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Aug/0015.html
> ---
> Alistair Miles
> Research Associate
> CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> Building R1 Room 1.60
> Fermi Avenue
> Chilton
> Didcot
> Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
> United Kingdom
> Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
> Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> _________________
> English Heritage is subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
> All information held by the organisation will be accessible 
> in response to a
> Freedom of Information request, unless one of the exemptions 
> in the Act applies.
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2005 11:13:54 UTC