- From: Leonard Will <L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:35:46 +0000
- To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
In message <43F0A546.9060502@rl.ac.uk> on Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Alistair Miles <a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk> wrote >I don't think it would be appropriate to express a similar constraint >in the general case (no more than one 'notation' per 'notation >datatype'), however, as I believe some classification schemes allow >more than one 'notation' for each concept (e.g. MeSH?). When they do, it is probably because the concept is being considered in a different context, and is therefore a different "compound concept". For example DDC has the concept of "horses" at 599.6655 and at 636.1, as well as other places. These are, though, really compound concepts expressing the combination of horses and a discipline, so are not the same. 599.6655 is the compound concept of "horses : zoology" and 636.1 is the compound concept of "horses : agriculture" The danger is that in some systems and catalogues the captions of both these numbers may be just "horses", relying on people inferring the other elements of the compound from the hierarchy and adjacent terms in the schedule. Such captions would not be adequate when the concepts are seen in isolation. Leonard -- Willpower Information (Partners: Dr Leonard D Will, Sheena E Will) Information Management Consultants Tel: +44 (0)20 8372 0092 27 Calshot Way, Enfield, Middlesex EN2 7BQ, UK. Fax: +44 (0)870 051 7276 L.Will@Willpowerinfo.co.uk Sheena.Will@Willpowerinfo.co.uk ---------------- <URL:http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/> -----------------
Received on Monday, 13 February 2006 16:36:18 UTC