- From: Aida Slavic <aida@acorweb.net>
- Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 15:22:49 +0000
- To: Antoine Isaac <Antoine.Isaac@KB.nl>
- CC: hburrows@supportingresearch.com, public-esw-thes@w3.org
Howard, > Both a SCOS and a SKOS will need to handle the psychological, cultural, and > philosophical nuance noted in the earlier discussion. However, if our > current scheme only helps us find ideas, it seems more like a "concept" > scheme and SCOS. I don't think we get to call it a "knowledge" scheme until > we capture statements together with the structures that relate them to their > appropriate use. If a system represents concepts as follows Hadrons. Baryons and mesons ---Nucleons ------Protons ---------Antiprotons ------Neutrons ---------Neutron flux distribution ---------Antineutrons ------Mesons ------Resonances ------Hyperon it is more than than concepts scheme - it represents knowledge about particles and how they relate to each other. This above implies that hadrons, baryions and mesons have something together and that that nucleons are type of baryons (or maybe all three above) and that there are several types of nucleons etc. If particle physics changes the fundamental knowledge about these particles this scheme above will have to change. I can not think of any concept scheme which would not be based on our knowledge of the world around which may consist of facts, ideas but also points of view Aida
Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 15:24:09 UTC