RE: Ordering concepts in a Tree display

Dear Jon,
I'm new to this community, but let me express my viewpoint about this issue.

In fact, while we agree (my colleague Bisu in CC and I) that ordering is
purpose oriented, it DOES carry semantics. 
As it is explained in the attached paper to appear at GEOS 2011, it gives
implicit semantic relations between coordinate terms. This can be of great
value for usability issues when a user browses a classification scheme.

Bests,
Enzo


-----Original Message-----
From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Jon Phipps
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 9:17 PM
To: Alistair Miles
Cc: Tom Morris; Jakob Voss; SKOS
Subject: Re: Ordering concepts in a Tree display


Alistair Miles wrote:
> (2) represent your systematic display using some other data format 
> (some sort of XML would be ideal, as you get hierarchy and ordering 
> easily), in which case you'd have to figure out how to manage your 
> systematic display data in addition to your basic broader/narrower 
> graph and make sure the two weren't inconsistent,

Hi Alistair,

This is the approach we're taking in our upcoming refresh of the Registry,
since we believe that in general ordering for display is a 'local' system
issue rather than an expression of conceptual semantics and is liable to be
highly variable. Not to mention that ordering for human browsing is usually
completely unrelated to semantics.

We're using JSON to express a 'manifest' that can be easily displayed as an
ordered hierarchy, the ordering of branches and leaves performed and stored
independent of the maintenance of the RDF.

Nice to have you around,

Jon Phipps
http://metadataregistry.org