- From: Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
- Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 13:55:28 +0000
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- CC: "public-esw-thes@w3.org" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Hello Antoine, On Monday, February 20, 2017 3:55 PM, Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl] wrote: > >> I guess the decision on using MADS/RDF also depends on how the 'groupings' of > >> concepts can be seen as 'real' SKOS concepts rather than ad-hoc, application- > specific > >> combination. In a way, this is a bit a case of pre-coordination vs post-coordination. > In > >> the MACS case MADS is a rather good fit as it's about headings which are largely > >> designed for being combined. > > > > That's an excellent criterion! If the vocabularies are post-coordinated, you can use > madsrdf, if they are pre-coordinated, you shouldn't. > > > Er isn't it the other way round? MADS was made for LCSH... Then I don't quite understand your comment... Can you expand a bit on what you meant? Cheers, Lars
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2017 13:56:16 UTC