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

Hi,


On 21/02/17 22:50, Svensson, Lars wrote:
> 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.
>



Well in the end I'm not claiming that it works better for one or the other. Just reminded that MADS/RDF was designed with pre-coordination in mind so it's a natural fit for this scenario. Which doesn't say it's bad for the other (post-coordination).

Antoine

Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2017 22:17:56 UTC