- From: Stella Dextre Clarke <sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:04:10 -0000
- To: "'Bernard Vatant'" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- Cc: "'SKOS'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Bernard, Yes, I think that's a good analysis of the situation and the practical ways of enabling widespread use of a single format, while encouraging tight control within any one vocabulary. I like your idea of providing advice on what to do when using SKOS for the distinct vocabulary types. Of course, it depends on obtaining a reasonable consensus as to *which* are the distinct vocabulary types - which we tried to make a start on defining in BS8723-3, and hopefully will continue to develop in the course of ISO NP 25964. Cheers Stella ***************************************************** Stella Dextre Clarke Information Consultant Luke House, West Hendred, Wantage, Oxon, OX12 8RR, UK Tel: 01235-833-298 Fax: 01235-863-298 SDClarke@LukeHouse.demon.co.uk ***************************************************** > -----Original Message----- > From: Bernard Vatant [mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com] > Sent: 03 December 2007 11:31 > To: Stella Dextre Clarke > Cc: 'SKOS' > Subject: Re: Issue : unicity of prefLabel per language per > concept scheme > > > Stella > > Thanks for your quick answer and references, and to make > again the point > about your reservations concerning the extension of SKOS > scope. Although > I understand the rationale, seems to me that the current trend is > towards having SKOS semantics and constraints layer as light > as possible > in order to extend its scope to any form of structured > vocabulary used > for indexing, classification, search and retrieval. > Additional constraints as the one we discuss here are indeed > application-specific, and therefore should not necessarily be > constrained by SKOS formal semantics, so that different types of > specific vocabularies/applications should be able to use the same > minimal format. It does not seem in contradiction with the > fact that " > ... internal constraints/validations when encoding any one vocabulary > may need to vary from one type of vocabulary to another". > All the question is to know if those different types of constraints > should be specified by SKOS vocabulary and semantics, or specified by > technical annexes such as "Using SKOS for a thesaurus, Using > SKOS for a > classification scheme, etc" ... or let to implementers. > > BTW I suppose your reservations hold in the similar way in > the framework > of ISO NP 25964 (keeping specifications for distinct vocabulary types > distinct). Right? > > Bernard > > Stella Dextre Clarke a écrit : > > Bernard, > > Yes, that is the practice followed in classification > schemes and some > > taxonomies, especially the monohierarchical ones. A classification > > scheme does not have a "preferred term", with the > properties described > > in ISO 2788 and BS8723-2; for display purposes it has a > caption that > > does not have to be unique, plus a notation that does have to be > > unique. In a taxonomy, the category label may be comparable > with the > > caption of a classification scheme, and uniqueness may be > conveyed by > > a notation or by an identifier. See BS 8723-3 for a more complete > > discussion. Because of these subtle differences in the functions of > > the various elements, I've always had reservations about using SKOS > > for several different types of vocabulary. There are certainly > > advantages in using one format to carry any type of > vocabulary, but I > > feel the internal constraints/validations when encoding any one > > vocabulary may need to vary from one type of vocabulary to another. > > Cheers Stella > > > > ***************************************************** > > Stella Dextre Clarke > > Information Consultant > > Luke House, West Hendred, Wantage, Oxon, OX12 8RR, UK > > Tel: 01235-833-298 > > Fax: 01235-863-298 > > SDClarke@LukeHouse.demon.co.uk > > ***************************************************** > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org > >> [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Vatant > >> Sent: 03 December 2007 09:54 > >> To: SKOS > >> Subject: Issue : unicity of prefLabel per language per > concept scheme > >> > >> > >> > >> I've several current SKOS use cases making me wondering about this > >> recommendation in > >> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-guide-20051102/#secmulti > >> > >> "It is recommended that no two concepts in the same > concept scheme be > >> given the same preferred lexical label in any given language." > >> > >> This recommendation follows the thesaurus standard practice, > >> but other > >> types of structured vocabularies which seem to be in the > >> scope of SKOS > >> don't follow this practice. I've in mind controlled > >> vocabularies in law, > >> where the same term is used in different contexts to label > different > >> concepts, the disambiguation being by context. The context > itself is > >> usually formally represented by a path to the concept in the > >> broader-narrower tree, e.g., the following are four > distinct concepts > >> all using the term "Children custody" in different contexts, > >> but in the > >> same Concept Scheme "Divorce". > >> > >> Contentious divorce: Temporary arrangements: Children custody > >> Contentious divorce: Definitive arrangements: Children > >> custody Non-contentious divorce: Temporary arrangements: > >> Children custody Non-contentious divorce: Definitive > >> arrangements: Children custody > >> > >> In such cases, encapsulating the context in the prefLabel string is > >> rapidly cumbersome in interfaces, the context chain can become > >> arbitrarily long in such matters. > >> > >> How would one SKOS-ify such a vocabulary? If "Children > >> custody" is used > >> as prefLabel, the recommendation of unicity is obviously > >> broken, if not, > >> what should be the recommended value of prefLabel? > >> > >> Bernard > >> > >> -- > >> > >> *Bernard Vatant > >> *Knowledge Engineering > >> ---------------------------------------------------- > >> *Mondeca** > >> *3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France > >> Web: www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com> > >> ---------------------------------------------------- > >> Tel: +33 (0) 871 488 459 > >> Mail: bernard.vatant@mondeca.com > >> <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> > >> Blog: Leçons de Choses > >> <http://mondeca.wordpress.com/> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > *Bernard Vatant > *Knowledge Engineering > ---------------------------------------------------- > *Mondeca** > *3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France > Web: www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com> > ---------------------------------------------------- > Tel: +33 (0) 871 488 459 > Mail: bernard.vatant@mondeca.com > <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> > Blog: Leçons de Choses > <http://mondeca.wordpress.com/> > > >
Received on Monday, 3 December 2007 13:04:24 UTC