- From: Luis Bermudez <bermudez@mbari.org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:25:12 -0800
- To: Jakob Voss <jakob.voss@gbv.de>
- Cc: bob.mulrenin@salzburgresearch.at, public-esw-thes@w3.org
I tried to classify different controlled vocabularies in my thesis, here: http://dspace.library.drexel.edu/handle/1860/376 (See chapter 9, page 93). It was based on Knowledge Organizations Systems by Hodge [1]: [1] G. Hodge, Systems of Knowledge Organization for Digital Libraries: Beyond Traditional Authority Files The Digital Library Federation, Council on Library and Information Resources, Washington, DC, 2000. Hope this helps, Luis Luis Bermudez Ph.D. MMI Technical Lead - http://marinemetadata.org bermudez@mbari.org Tel: (831) 775-1929 MBARI 7700 Sandholdt Road, Moss Landing CA 95039-9644, USA On Feb 28, 2007, at 8:11 AM, Jakob Voss wrote: > > Bob Mulrenin wrote: > >> We are planning some open source components and there are a couple of >> general issues and I would appreciate your feedback. >> >> What is the best practice for declaring the type of controlled >> vocabulary as either either thesaurus, taxonomy, classification >> scheme, >> subject headings, folksonomy, etc ? Hopefully referencing a >> standard >> vocabulary of these types (?) >> >> It would help to be consistent with others and so that the tools can >> adapt the management and presentation features, as well as offer >> services to external apps.... >> >> <skos:ConceptScheme rdf:about="http://www.ukat.org.uk/thesaurus"> >> <dc:type>http://..../thesaurus</dc:type> > > As Stella pointed out it's not that easy to tell what is a thesaurus, > taxonomy, classification scheme etc. I think it's more relevant what > specific features of a controlled vocabulary you want. I am working > on a > general typology of knowledge organization systems based on properties > and features rather instead of types [1] but this is probably still > too > vague and informal. With SKOS we should define a set of semantic, > formally defined features. Alistair started with the obvious condition > that should apply for all concept schemes [2]. > > An additional features of a concept schemes could be that hierarchic > relations do form a tree - then it's a kind of taxonomy or > classification scheme and you can use other presentations than in a > multi-hierarchical concept scheme. > > What kind of open source components do you plan? > > Greetings, > Jakob > > > [1] Jakob Voss (2007): Tagging, Folksonomy & Co - Renaissance of > Manual > Indexing? http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0701072 > > [2] SKOS as a semantic extension of RDFS. > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/RdfsSemanticExtension > > -- > Jakob Voß <jakob.voss@gbv.de>, skype: nichtich > Verbundzentrale des GBV (VZG) / Common Library Network > Platz der Goettinger Sieben 1, 37073 Göttingen, Germany > +49 (0)551 39-10242, http://www.gbv.de >
Received on Wednesday, 28 February 2007 16:27:35 UTC