Re: ISSUE 77 and postcoordination [and ISSUE-40!]

  Jakob,

> A KOS encoded in SKOS, written in a book or drafted on a whiteboard is 
> nothing but a stream of bits and bytes, a pile of paper and letters, an 
> aggregation of atoms. It's the usage that creates meaning. >
> I think that this this philosophical viewpoint has practical 
> implications but nevertheless it's a philosophical question and I doubt 
> that we simply find a consensus about it.

We are playfully splashing here in deep waters of semiotics, methaphysic
and cognitive processes :-).

I don't think our goal is to agree whether a novel published in a book
is anything else but stream of characters that acquire meaning only when
read. Or whether the Moon exists when we close our eyes or when covered
with clouds.  Or whether observable reality is a segmentable continuum
... or any such thing. :-)

It is a bit to strong to assert that usage creates the meaning. One part 
of meaning can be added or changed through use. Some properties of 
things are natural (rigid properties) and some are artificial and 
arbitrary. Some properties of some things are recorded in KOS - some 
will come through its application. I think it may be relevant to keep 
them apart as they are managed and evolve differently and may have 
different type of authority/quality value attached to them.

KOS may be twisted re-interpreted on purpose or accidentally in the 
process of application

> Sure. It's the application scenario that matters but we have different 
> scenarios in mind.
> I raised ISSUE 77 and 40 because I stumbled upon two application 
> scenarios that's I'd like to encode with SKOS:
> 
> 1. Indexing: How do you encode the statement "Person <P> indexed 
> resource <R> with concepts <C1> and <C2>"?

IMHO this has nothing to do with SKOS or with vocabulary as such.
In all systems that I know of, this information is normally encoded in
meta-metadata - or administrative metadata. It is not part of vocabulary
or resource. These meta-metadata hardly have any value outside local
system scenario and many cataloguing agencies never export it or include
it in the process of information exchange. You have to come up with some
good argument why this information would be relevant for resource discovery.
Authority of metadata is usually established through institutions not
through individuals.

> 2. Mapping: How do you encode the statement "Concept <A> in vocabulary 
> <X> has the same meaning as Concept <B> and <C> together (coordinated) 
> in vocabulary <Y>"?

There are other people here better informed of inter vocabulary
relationships.
Vocabulary <X> does not care how vocabulary <Y> expresses concepts and
vice versa. It is an external, third  agency that is concerned with
this. If I understand correctly this implies that you would need a third
i.e. mapping vocabulary which you can call <Z>.

As mapping can be done as direct mapping or through intermediary
vocabulary (pivot/spine vocabulary) <W>. So this may be published as
vocabulary crosswalks <X => W> and <Y =>W>.

If this is not meant to be solved through equivalency relationships than
  maybe some subset or extension of SKOS can be developed to handle this.

aida

Received on Monday, 17 March 2008 22:33:50 UTC