Re: SKOS requirements

I can provide an example of B from the Swedish educational broadcasting
company (state-owned educational TV and Radio for K12) that we helped a
few years ago. Sorry, but all below is in Swedish.

The interface designers at one point decided that the flash applet on
this page:

http://dmb.ur.se/mb/main?cmd=showsearchpage&searchtype=symbol

(Click "Börja här")

was an appropriate entry point for teachers into their digital archive,
with some simple iconic categories. The issue is that the actual data
was marked up in RDF using a taxonomy with the entries available here:

http://dmb.ur.se/mb/main?cmd=showsearchpage&searchtype=advanced

which had nothing to do with the categories in that applet.

So case B can be an audience-specific-to-backend-generic mapping too. We
would greatly have benefited from SKOS here, I think.

/Mikael

tis 2006-10-17 klockan 18:58 +0200 skrev Antoine Isaac:
> Hello,
> 
> Concerning pattern A, as I said today almost all deployed 
> thesaurus-based information management system (e.g. in library) should 
> provide an example for pattern A. I can provide with a quick example at
> http://www.kb.nl/kb/manuscripts/browser/index.html
> Manuscripts illuminations have been described (indexed) using the 
> Iconclass concept scheme, and you find it based on your selecting a 
> concept in the browser and the existing indices for the collection 
> records (illuminations)
> 
> For pattern B, the situation is different since it is newer. In my 
> project we have built a small demo trying to access to 2 collections 
> indexed with different vocabularies using one or the other. The browser 
> (from http://stitch.cs.vu.nl/demo.html) uses a semantic-web enabled 
> representation of the vocabularies, and links between the different 
> concepts of these two vocabularies. Of course the setting is not really 
> professional, but at least it can give you an idea of what this pattern 
> is about.
> 
> Interesting is that people from the library/museum world are getting 
> more and more interested in these interoperability matters. And we might 
> have soon some more realistic use cases as input, mixing the ideas 
> behind such demo and real portals accessing several collections, like 
> www.theeuropeanlibrary.org, or some more internal situations (e.g. an 
> institute willing to merge two vocabularies it has been using for years, 
> but wanting to keep its old data available).
> 
> Well, everything is quite centered around my own interest, but hopefully 
> it can give some ideas on the issues Alistair discussed. Notice that 
> (still in my neighbourhood) the Multimedian eCulture 
> http://e-culture.multimedian.nl/ project has a very nice demo for 
> browsing collections with several vocabularies. Technically I think it 
> is an instance of pattern A (Guus, correct me if I'm wrong, and some 
> mapping was done!), even if a lot vocabularies are used at the same 
> time, which makes it a very semantic web-intensive case!
> 
> Best,
> 
> Antoine
> 
> >Thanks, Alistair, for providing more context for the next phase of
> >these discussions.
> >
> >I've looked at your DC2006 presentation and skimmed your
> >paper and leafed quickly through your thesis.  (I look forward
> >to reading each of these more fully soon.)
> >
> >It would help me a lot if you could cite current examples of
> >deployed systems that use each of the two retrieval patterns
> >that you describe.  There is sometimes a tendency to write
> >hypothetical use cases -- e.g. one *could* have a desire to
> >build a Web portal with the following characteristics ...
> >but if we have real examples of real systems that might
> >adopt SKOS if it met certain requirements, that will serve
> >us much better as we get down to the nitty-gritty in the SWD WG.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
-- 
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Received on Tuesday, 17 October 2006 17:50:48 UTC