- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 09:16:25 -0800
- To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Cc: open-bibliography@lists.okfn.org, public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
Jeff, these seem to be different schemes, not different prefLabels. They've been given equivalence, but have different identifiers. My point is that prefLabel choice is not just a question of language, but language is the only option we have to creating different prefLabels for the same identified concept. kc Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>: > In SKOS, different communities can have their own prefLabels for the > same concept like so: > > mesh:abc a skos:Concept ; > skos:inScheme mesh:scheme ; > skos:exactMatch lcsh:xyz ; > skos:prefLabel "the established MESH heading" . > > lcsh:xyz a skos:Concept ; > skos:inScheme lcsh:scheme ; > skos:exactMatch mesh:abc ; > skos:prefLabel "the established LCSH heading" . > > Jeff > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] On >> Behalf Of Karen Coyle >> Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 11:02 AM >> To: Simon Spero >> Cc: open-bibliography@lists.okfn.org; public-lld >> Subject: Re: New BNB sample data available >> >> 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 >> >> > > > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Monday, 7 February 2011 17:17:02 UTC