- From: Jakob Voss <jakob.voss@gbv.de>
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:25:45 +0100
- To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Hi all, Alasdair wrote: > Aida wrote: >> >>> 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. > > I agree with this point of view: keep SKOS for capturing the generic > features of the KOS and then allow systems to apply the KOS as they > see fit. However, indications on how this can be achieved and whether > any additional machinery are required should be considered, but in the > end, the document which publishes the KOS should be kept focused on > that one topic so that it can be easily reused. Well, then we just don't agree in this point. I think Social Tagging and Folksonomies show that you cannot divide an indexing vocabulary and its usage (who indexed what in which context). Looks like we hit a current research frontier of information science ;-) Alasdair wrote: >> 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>. > > I don't think that approach works. In some cases, you will still need > some way of saying that <A> exactMatch (<B> AND <C>). This is an > important area which is lacking from the current SKOS reference. That's the point. And I even think that these case are not just the exception! What do you think about the following solution: The intersection (<B> AND <C>) is a subset of <B> and a subset of <C>, right? So you can say <B> skos:narrower (<B> AND <C>) . <C> skos:narrower (<B> AND <C>) . The mapping <A> exactMatch (<B> AND <C>) can then already be expressed with current SKOS: <A> skos:exactMatch [ rdf:type skos:Concept ; skos:broader <B> ; skos:broader <C> ] . Furthermore the union (<B> OR <C>) is a superset of <B> and a superset of <C>. The mapping <A> exactMatch (<B> OR <C>) can then already be expressed with current SKOS: <A> skos:exactMatch [ rdf:type skos:Concept ; skos:narrower <B> ; skos:narrower <C> ] . Isn't that pretty? :-) Aida wrote: > Coming back to your real problem. > For pre-coordination for the moment I don't have a definitive > proposition, but for post-coordination, why don't you use rdf:Bag and > rdf:Alt [1]? Has it been proposed before? [...] > So what do you think this proposal is usable for you? I do believe it is > simpler, and appropriately re-uses existing RDF solutions (I think the > examples given in [1] are really close to what you want to achieve) Well, I'll have a look. Personally I find rdf:Bag and rdf:Alt almost as ugly as reification but maybe it can help. > Notice we MAY want to assign semantics for this proposal pattern, e.g. > saying that all the members of the bag are the skos:subject of the > document. But I'm not sure this actually fits the intended semantics of > post-coordination. If a document is about a combination of concept in a > post-coordination-based search system, it is not supposed to be "fully" > about each concept. Good point. On the other hand that's an argument to define more precise semantic instead of just using rdf:Bag/rdf:Alt. Greetings, Jakob -- 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 Tuesday, 18 March 2008 11:27:05 UTC