Re: Label management information in SKOS-XL (continuing from UMTHES and SKOS-XL)

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 at 23:17:06, Johan De Smedt 
<johan.de-smedt@tenforce.com> wrote

>Hi Christophe, I provided some in-line considerations
>
>From: Christophe Dupriez [mailto:christophe.dupriez@destin.be]
>Sent: Wednesday, 04 November, 2009 22:06
>
>The subject may be touchy but one could like to see a standardized way 
>to have SKOS / ISO 25964 interchangeability (something like an SKOS/ISO 
>application profile) .
>
>This would allow:

>1) An ISO 25964 thesaurus editor could unload/reload using SKOS files
>without information losses.

>>>>JDS-3: I think it is feasible to write a SKOS extension that 
>>>>captures the formal model of the ISO standard.

>>>>JDS-3: on an earlier version of SKOS-XL, I made an exercise some 
>>>>time ago to cover the BS8723 (which was input for the ISO standard)

>>>>JDS-3: note this exercise was never discussed on any forum yet

>2) Exchanges between different ISO 25964 thesauri could be done using the
>SKOS format.

>3) SKOS aware applications could support ISO 25964 "extensions" without
>parameterization to indicate which RDF attributes contains the supplementary
>ISO data.

>4) SKOS would benefit from the insights of ISO 25964 design team.

>>>>JDS-3: I support these considerations.  It would provide a formal 
>>>>guideline for SKOS - ISO thesaurus transformation.

>There is a rather striking difference between SKOS flexibility and 
>extendability (opening ways to unstandardized horizons) and ISO 
>willingness to build upon the past within a stricter frame.
>
>What I am suggesting is to check (and to normalize somewhat) how the
>complete data model of ISO can be mapped in SKOS(-XL).

I am encouraged that this issue has been opened again, because as a 
member of the ISO 25964 working party, I am keen to resolve any 
divergence between SKOS and that standard. Part 1 of that standard is 
still in draft, but will soon be circulated to national standardising 
bodies for comment - they may be willing to supply copies to interested 
parties, for a price :-(

Some of the issues were discussed in my message of 13th February 2009 
and subsequent discussion

<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2009Feb/0033.html>

The UML model has been slightly modified since then, and I attach a copy 
of the latest version of the class diagram below. There are notes in the 
standard which give more detail, but due to ISO copyright restrictions I 
am very sorry not to be able to make them available; I shall however do 
my best to clarify any further points if anyone asks.

>By the way, labels reification opens the way to write labels which are
>written from multiple coordinated concepts.

>A reified label of a coordination concept could include an rdf:Seq.
>This rdf:Seq would contain strings and/or refers to (reified) labels from
>the different coordinated concepts and/or refers to coordination operators
>(conjunctions).

>This could generate a dynamic literalForm based on the labels of the
>differeent coordinated concepts.

This is the main element that is missing to allow the model to represent 
classification schemes and other forms of pre-coordinated knowledge 
organisation schemes. Such schemes typically have classes which 
represent compound concepts, in which concepts from more than one facet 
are combined, such as an activity and the people who carry out that 
activity. When changes of facet occur within a classification hierarchy, 
the relationship is one of synthesis rather than of subordination, and 
neither SKOS nor the ISO model yet provide for this.

I would like to see this added to our model, and I think that it will 
probably involve a solution on the lines that Christophe suggests above. 
It is not just a case of combining labels, though; presumably we have to 
treat the compound concept as a type of concept in the model, so that we 
have concepts which are made up of compounds of other, simpler, 
concepts, combined in a specified sequence, possibly with coordination 
operators, and with corresponding labels. Would anyone like to try 
adding this to the model below?

Coordination of concepts has previously been discussed during the 
development of SKOS but was not followed through because it was "too 
hard" to deal with within the time available, e.g.

<http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/proposals.html#coordination-8>
<http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/40>

Can we look at it again now?

Regards

Leonard Will

-- 
Willpower Information     (Partners: Dr Leonard D Will, Sheena E Will)
Information Management Consultants            Tel: +44 (0)20 8372 0092
27 Calshot Way                              L.Will@Willpowerinfo.co.uk
ENFIELD                                Sheena.Will@Willpowerinfo.co.uk
EN2 7BQ, UK                            http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/