Re: Are multiple notations actually used?

Bernard,
Very good and powerful idea, thanks!
Jean
Le 21 févr. 2014 11:22, "Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> a
écrit :

> Jean
>
> One answer is called ... named graphs.
>
> Create a named graph for each Concept Scheme, with a different notation in
> each one. Therefore the unicity of notation is valid inside each named
> graph.
> This way you can also add comments, definitions specific to each context,
> or even modify the hierarchy of concepts (like not taking some branch, or
> extending the hierarchy to other concepts). The broader-narrower
> relationships will also be specific to a named graph etc.
> It does not prevent to specify the datatype for notation, but this is only
> a syntactic constraint.
>
> Hope that helps
>
> Bernard
>
>
> 2014-02-21 10:52 GMT+01:00 jean delahousse <delahousse.jean@gmail.com>:
>
>> Dear Kerin,
>>
>> Thanks for your answer about skos:notation, I crossed the same need at
>> the Publications Office of the European Union and I prefer your solution as
>> the one I was thinking of (create sub-properties of skos:notation).
>>
>> You might have an answer to this related question:
>>
>> The same concept (same URI) is used in a thesaurus and then reused in an
>> other conceptScheme representing a taxonomy. In each conceptScheme we want
>> to give an id to the concept related to its location in the conceptScheme
>> hierarchy, something like 4.53 in the first conceptScheme and 2.4.55 in the
>> second. We use skos:notation for this property.
>>
>> We need to say that one skos:notation is valid for the first
>> conceptScheme and the second one for the second conceptScheme.
>>
>> Would you use the "rdf:datatype" solution to differentiate the 2
>> skos:notation and relate them to the proper conceptScheme ? Would you use
>> an other solution ?
>>
>> The reuse of concept (using a single URI, not skos:match) in several
>> conceptScheme brings a lot of questions, but this is one for which I don't
>> have any good answer today.
>>
>> Yours
>> Jean
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-02-17 1:02 GMT+01:00 Kevin Ford <kefo@3windmills.com>:
>>
>>> Dear Jacob,
>>>
>>> When it came time to convert our MARC Organizations dataset into
>>> RDF/SKOS, we did not want to lose information and granularity we had
>>> collected and maintained for years.  We've formally maintained and
>>> published multiple codes for each Organization (one code is the "official"
>>> one; one code represents a normalized form; another possible code - though
>>> not presently included - is an ISIL [1].  Regardless, the ISIL, if we
>>> choose to include it, represents yet another perfectly valid code for the
>>> same Concept).
>>>
>>> In any event, we established two different datatypes, one for each code
>>> (the "official" one and the normalized one).  See, for example:
>>>
>>> http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/organizations/dlcmrc.skos.rdf
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>> Kevin
>>>
>>> [1] http://biblstandard.dk/isil/
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kevin Ford
>>> Library of Congress
>>> Washington, DC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 02/14/2014 01:53 PM, Voß, Jakob wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I am designing a software that uses SKOS data and unsure about how to
>>>> limit notations. Are multiple notations per concepts actually used? The
>>>> advise to use custom datatypes is rather unhelpful because RDF has no
>>>> default mechanism to express information about datatypes. If most concept
>>>> schemes have only one notation per Concept, I'd rather make this a
>>>> constraint instead of implementing edge cases that nobody makes use of
>>>> anyway. See also my question at http://answers.semanticweb.
>>>> com/questions/26492/are-skos-concepts-with-multiple-
>>>> notations-actually-used
>>>>
>>>> Jakob
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jakob Voß
>>>> Verbundzentrale des GBV (VZG)
>>>> Abteilung Digitale Bibliothek
>>>> Platz der Göttinger Sieben 1
>>>> 37073 Göttingen
>>>> Telefon: (49)551 39-10242
>>>> Internet: www.gbv.de
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jean Delahousse
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> delahousse.jean@gmail.com - +33 6 01 22 48 55
>> http://fr.linkedin.com/in/jeandelahousse
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> *Bernard Vatant*
> Vocabularies & Data Engineering
> Tel :  + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59
> Skype : bernard.vatant
> http://google.com/+BernardVatant
> --------------------------------------------------------
> *Mondeca*
> 3 cité Nollez 75018 Paris, France
> www.mondeca.com
> Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>