- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 08:01:34 -0800
- To: Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>
- Cc: open-bibliography@lists.okfn.org, public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
Quoting Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>: > In regards to the requirement that preflabel must be unique within a scheme, > this is an essential property of controlled vocabularies (ambiguity > control). See e.g. NISO Z39.19 section 5.3.1 (not sure what the paragraph > number is in 2788, but it's roughly the same wording). > > It's been LC policy since 1876 :-) [Cutter rule # 173]. Right, but the context of that rule is a thesaurus or controlled vocabulary in which the "prefLabel" *is* the identifier for the "thing." There were no URIs in 1876. FRAD continues this by essentially having two identifiers -- one for machines (URI) and one for humans (prefLabel). This makes sense, to some degree, because you do want to communicate unambiguously to both machines and humans, but I'm not totally convinced that prefLabel is the way to do that, since different communities are likely to favor different prefLabels. (Think of the difference between MeSH subject headings and LCSH subject headings for the same thing.) Communicating to humans unambiguously is devilishly hard, as we know. kc > > Simon > p.s. > Amusingly, Z39.19 uses the term polyseme polysemously to mean homonym. > Lexical semantics meta! > On Feb 6, 2011 8:57 AM, "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Sunday, 6 February 2011 16:02:09 UTC