- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 17:13:43 +0100
- To: "Svensson, Lars" <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
- CC: "public-esw-thes@w3.org" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Hi Lars, On 21/02/17 14:55, Svensson, Lars wrote: > 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? > MADS/RDF's concept coordination features was made with (pre-coordinated) LCSH in mind. So I didn't understand your sentence "If the vocabularies are post-coordinated, you can use madsrdf, if they are pre-coordinated, you shouldn't" at it goes in the other direction. Anyway I don't think it's a big deal. I.e., even if MADS/RDF fits well the pre-coordinated cases, it's not essentially bad for tackling other situations. Cheers, Antoine
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2017 16:14:20 UTC