W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > June 2007

RE: [SKOS] ISSUE-33 "Minimal Fix" Proposal

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:12:45 +0100
Message-ID: <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D02EC0BF1@exchange11.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: "SWD WG" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Cc: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

Hi all,

This email proposes a way forward for [ISSUE-33] "GroupingInConceptHierarchies".

I have proposed the following section of the SKOS Semantics wiki draft as a resolution for this issue:

[1] <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/Semantics/Grouping?action=recall&rev=4>

This is section of the SKOS Semantics wiki draft, which defines a semantics for skos:Collection, skos:OrderedCollection, skos:member and skos:memberList.

N.B. the semantics are such that the use of a skos:Collection with skos:narrower, skos:broader or skos:related will lead to an inconsistency if the domain or range of these properties is skos:Concept, because skos:Collection is disjoint with skos:Concept. The SKOS Primer will of course have to present examples that are consistent with the semantics, and explain how to avoid an inconsistency.

I would like to suggest that the Working Group accept this resolution, because it fixes the basic contradiction in the previous specifications, regarding the use of skos:Collection with skos:broader or skos:narrower, that [ISSUE-33] captures.

One open question is, if we accept this resolution, then how will applications generate systematic (hierarchical) displays (views) including node labels?

I would like to suggest that the Working Group accept [1] as a resolution of [ISSUE-33], then raise further issues concerning the generation and transfer of various different display types, including alphabetical and systematic thesaurus displays.



[ISSUE-33] <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/33>

Alistair Miles
Research Associate
Science and Technology Facilities Council
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Harwell Science and Innovation Campus
Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
United Kingdom
Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl] 
> Sent: 15 June 2007 15:27
> To: Miles, AJ (Alistair)
> Cc: SWD WG; public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [SKOS] ISSUE-33 "Minimal Fix" Proposal
> Thanks for the answer. They confirm everything
> >> - relying on sophisticated algorithm to generate hierarchies for 
> >> grouping-aware applications
> >>     
> >
> > Yes and no. The fact is that a typical "systematic display" 
> of a thesaurus or classification scheme incorporates a 
> certain amount of "presentational" information - information 
> about how to lay things out in 2 dimensions. I believe it 
> should be out of scope for SKOS to convey presentational 
> information. This means that, in order to fully convey a 
> systematic presentation of a thesaurus or classification 
> scheme, you might need something other than SKOS.
> >
> > However, in the absence of any presentational information, 
> there could 
> > be a default method of constructing a systematic display. To handle 
> > SKOS grouping constructs, this would require an algorithm which is 
> > *fairly* sophisticated - certainly not straightforward to a novice 
> > hacker. The onus is on me to provide a reference implementation :)
> >   
> my mistake, "generate" should have been "display"
> >   
> >> - asking thesaurus builders to create explicit 
> broader/narrower links 
> >> between the concept generalizing the collection and the concepts 
> >> included in the collection (e.g.
> >> ex:milk skos:narrower ex:cowmilk),
> >>     
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >   
> >> therefore ignoring the 
> >> level of the grouping in the explicitation of the 
> conceptual hierarchy
> >>     
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean by this.
> >   
> That we you design the conceptual hierarchy, you might have 
> some 'mental 
> image' of it in your head, influenced by the display of other 
> thesauri. 
> But you should ignore this image, and build the conceptual link not 
> considering the grouping node.
> Antoine
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 17:13:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:45:40 UTC