Re: [SKOS]: [ISSUE 44] BroaderNarrowerSemantics

On Dec 14, 2007 2:06 AM, Joseph Tennis <jtennis@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>  Sorry to swoop in here, but I did want to point something out that might  help.  I suppose yours is a problem if we assume LCSH expresses thesaural relationships by listing a BT, i.e., it that it is a thesaurus.  However,  LCSH is not a thesaurus, it's a different creature altogether – it's a  'subject heading list,' and does not adhere to the model of a thesaurus, and as a consequence BT does not mean the same thing to LCSH as it would to vocabularies built to comport to Z39.19.

You're absolutely right about the issues here; the examples came from
a paper I'm working on with the working title "LCSH is to Thesaurus as
Doorbell is to Mammal".

The problem with the LCSH is that they're  "subject headings disguised
as a thesaurus" \cite{Dykstra:1988lr}.   Calling associative
relationships that are not in the least hierarchical  "broader" and
"narrower" did not prove fruitful.   Weakening the semantics of
broader/narrower for SKOS would be repeating the same mistake.

Properly handling intransitive hierarchical relationships is heading
dangerously close to non-monotonic country.  That could cost SKOS its
'S' :)   Issues that need to be addressed, but not by, er, default.

Simon



@article{Dykstra:1988lr,
	Abstract = {Discusses recent changes in the Library of Congress
Subject Headings (LCSH), arguing that the adoption of the
well-recognized codes for thesauri has created confusion because the
LCSH is not a true thesaurus. The distinction between subject headings
and terms are clarified and a possible solution to the problems with
the LCSH is suggested. (5 references) (MES)},
	Author = {Dykstra, Mary},
	Id = {EJ367784},
	Journal = {Library Journal},
	Keywords = {Library of Congress Subject Headings},
	Number = {4},
	Pages = {42--46},
	Title = {LC Subject Headings Disguised as a Thesaurus.},
	Ty = {JOUR},
	Volume = {113},
	Year = {1988}}

Received on Friday, 14 December 2007 17:03:16 UTC