W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > February 2017

RE: Using iso-thes to publish 1:n-relations between skos:Concepts from different concept schemes

From: Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 21:50:27 +0000
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
CC: "public-esw-thes@w3.org" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <24637769D123E644A105A0AF0E1F92EF010D2BEC46@dnbf-ex1.AD.DDB.DE>
Hello Antoine,

On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 5:14 PM, Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl] wrote:

> 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.

Ah, I meant your following statement:

[[
> >>>> 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.
]]

I interpreted that as if you meant that MADS/RDF works well with post-coordinated combinations but not with pre-coordinated ones, which obviously wasn't what you meant. Can you expand a bit on that?

> 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.

Best,

Lars

Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2017 21:51:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:46:52 UTC