Re: ISSUE 77 and postcoordination

On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:22 AM, Jakob Voss <Jakob.Voss@gbv.de> wrote:
>  I must raise another issue related to ISSUE 77 (skos:subject) about
>  collections of concepts. How do you encode postcoordination? After
>  dealing with the encoding of classifications and authority files in SKOS
>  I am working on a paper on encoding social tagging information with
>  SKOS. So I stumbled upon the skos:subject property and encoding of
>  subject indexing.
---8<snip>8---
>  The solution I found, seems to answer both questions. First you have to
>  broaden the rdfs:range of skos:subject, skos:exactMatch,
>  skos:broadMatch, skos:narrowMatch and skos:relatedMatch from
>  skos:Concept to skos:Concept, skos:Collection and
>  skos:OrderedCollection. Second specify the semantics:

Hi Jakob

I am a bit new to matters relating to SKOS, but have lots of
experience in the use of classification systems.
Recently I have made a SKOS version of a particularly thorny subject
classification system, ICONCLASS, and we have applied it to a few
hundred thousand objects. So I am just going to jump into the middle
of this discussion.

Shouldn't the SKOS recommendation be as small and simple as possible?
Trying to add postcoordination handling seems to be outside the core
of things you want to use skos for. My inclination would be to group
the application of skos:Concept items linked to the item you are
describing using a different mechanism. I am guessing that is what you
are referring to in your mail in using RDF for that, but I have to
re-iterate my ignorance as a disclaimer.

The bottom line is that I like things to be small, simple and easy to
combine. Once you add too many crufty bits it just gets confusing.

gr.

---
Etienne Posthumus
Amsterdam, Nederland
---
Mnemosyne
ICONCLASS
Arkyves

Received on Monday, 10 March 2008 12:36:32 UTC