- From: Antoine Isaac <Antoine.Isaac@KB.nl>
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:33:36 +0100
- To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Hello all, Some remarks about Alistair's mail. Some of them I am not sure, expert advice is welcome. > I don't think it makes sense to divide thesauri from classification > schemes, because the underlying mathematical and computational models > describing retrieval systems that use them are extremely similar and can > easily be generalised. > The problem is that if you include a skos:notation that just deals with classification schemes you make a de facto difference between them. [Of cours this remark is irrevelant if notations are as often encountered in thesauri than in classifications, but I am not sure it will be the case ;-) ] > Regarding use of skos:prefLabel, the original intention was to use this > property only to give lexical labels that are in fact words or > collocations of words from some natural language. I.e. skos:prefLabel > should always be used with a literal that has a language tag. Which prevent in any case a possible skos:notation to be a subproperty of skos:prefLabel I guess. That solves one of our modelling problems if you want skos:notation in SKOS... >Therefore > I would suggest that, for classification schemes, captions be given via > the skos:prefLabel property, even where two concepts in the same scheme > have the same caption (see the note on integrity constraints below). See my horrified scream below ;-) > Note that some thesauri use both notations and preferred terms (see e.g. > BS8723-2). Very interesting, that can bring an additional argument against having skos:notation as subproperty of skos:prefLabel. Btw can you point at these examples? > In the draft 'SKOS Core Integrity Testing and Quality Assurance for > Instance Data' [1] I structured the tests in a very deliberate way ... > [...] > This design is intended to handle the situation where some types of > 'concept scheme' legitimately allow two 'concepts' to have the same > preferred label, whereas other types of 'concept scheme' don't allow this. Here is the scream I guess ;-). Do you have also example of such vocabularies? The standards usually say that concept scheme entities are to be referred by a *single* pref label. This view is furthermore contradictory with the SKOS information that states that 'No two concepts in the same concept scheme may have the same value for skos:prefLabel in a given language' So what is the 'official' SKOS position on this quite important point? Cheers, Antoine
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2006 14:33:46 UTC