- From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 12:26:49 +0100
- To: "Stella Dextre Clarke" <sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk>, "Mark van Assem" <mark@cs.vu.nl>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Hi Stella, > -----Original Message----- > From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Stella > Dextre Clarke > Sent: 19 October 2005 10:13 > To: 'Mark van Assem'; public-esw-thes@w3.org > Subject: RE: [PORT] Moved: 2nd Public Working Draft for SKOS > Core Guide > and SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification > > > > Just a brief word of support for Mark's concern. When a thesaurus is > being used for its intended purpose, i.e. information retrieval, what > matters is the Concept rather than the Term, so you would think that > notes on Terms are quite irrelevant. > But while you are the editor > building and maintaining the thesaurus, and perhaps sharing your data > with other editors, it is sometimes useful to be able to record > housekeeping information about individual terms. I can see that the > model becomes more complicated if you allow terms to have > notes, but it > also becomes more versatile, more generally applicable. I think we could fit this into the model, but I'd like to make sure we do it only where appropriate and absolutely necessary. Hence I'd like for us to review a good set of requirements before making any design decisions. So if you could describe the scenarios you have encountered where notes are usefully associated with non-preferred terms, that would be very helpful. Cheers, Al.
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2005 11:26:53 UTC