RE: conceptGroups in iso-thes

Hi Katell,

 

Managing all concept groups in the same way is possible (unless I miss-understood your remark).

However, ConceptGroups and ConceptScheme are disjoint (in RDF and OWL semantics).

 

1) According ISO 25964, concept groups are NOT Thesaurus ‘like’.

    Therefore, they are not modeled sub-classes of the class skos:ConceptScheme.

    In general one can imagine that “some” concept groups (like Micro-Thesaurus) are thesaurus ‘like’ but not all concept groups have that similarity.

 

2) ISO 25964 does not formally give a classification (or sub-typing) of concept groups.

   Typing is done via a literal property: giving examples like "microthesaurus", "theme", or "subject category"

    So ISO 25864 does not formally specify what a micro-thesaurus is – giving some freedom to thesaurus managers.

 

3) In the ISO 25964 – SKOS correspondance <http://www.niso.org/schemas/iso25964/correspondencesSKOS/>  document [1], the microthesaurus is modeled as an iso-thes:ConceptGroup (also a skos:Collection), like any other concept group.

     In general, skos:inScheme is adviced to be used on all modeled entities  (concept, group, array).

     In addition, one specific and one custom specialization are advised:

    a) the iso-thes specific specialization allows formalizing the “MicroThesaurus” typing by means of the property iso-thes:microThesaurusOf which is a sub-property of skos:inScheme.

    b) the advised custom specialization is to make a thesaurus specific sub-class of iso-thes:ConceptGroup.

    examples of custom classes may be: 

        myScheme:Domain, myScheme:Microthesaurus, myScheme:Theme, myScheme:SubjectCategory, … (as is practical and convenient)

 

Exports of any concept group (for UNESCO or EUROVOC, Domain as well as Micro-Thesaurus could be a group), should include the concept group URI (e.g. myScheme:myGroupX ) and the skos:inScheme.

   myScheme:myGroupX  a   skos:Collection ,   iso-thes:ConceptGroup ,  myScheme:MyConceptGroupType  .

   myScheme:myGroupX  skos:inScheme   myScheme:myThesaurus  .

In case the concept Group is a micro thesaurus, the following additional statement should be made:

   myScheme:myGroupX  iso-thes:microThesaurusOf   myScheme:myThesaurus  .

 

Note: In the above text, any token starting with ‘my’ (myScheme, MyConceptGroupType, myGroupX, myThesaurus) is custom (not in scope of skos, skos-xl or iso-thes).

 

 

[1] http://www.niso.org/schemas/iso25964/correspondencesSKOS

 

Kind Regards,

 

Johan De Smedt 

Chief Technology Officer

 

mail:  <mailto:johan.de-smedt@tenforce.com> johan.de-smedt@tenforce.com

mobile: +32 477 475934

mail-TenForce

 

From: BRIATTE Katell [mailto:katell.briatte@culture.gouv.fr] 
Sent: Thursday, 17 October, 2013 11:17
To: Johan De Smedt
Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Subject: conceptGroups in iso-thes

 

Hi Johan,

I wonder why a ConceptGroup is handled differently as it is a Microthesaurus or another type of grouping.Is there some inconvenience in treating all the ConceptGroups in the same way, namely as sub-properties of skos:ConceptScheme ?
We are currently implementing SKOS exports with iso-thes:ConceptGroup in the next release of GINCO (https://github.com/culturecommunication/ginco). It would be easier and more consistent to manage all groups of concepts in the same way. What do you think about it?

Kind regards,
kb





  _____  

Merci de nous aider à préserver l'environnement en n'imprimant ce courriel et les documents joints que si nécessaire.