RE: New BNB sample data available

Karen,

I disagree that "language is the only option we have to create different
prefLabels." My LCSH vs. MESH illustration shows how skos:ConceptScheme
can be used as another dimension. If I had asserted owl:sameAs between
the two concepts, then we would agree that the two skos:prefLabels end
up colliding. Instead of using owl:sameAs, though, I used
skos:exactMatch. This is a weaker form of "equivalence" that preserves
the separate identities of the LCSH and MESH concepts while recognizing
"a high degree of confidence that two concepts can be used
interchangeably across a wide range of information retrieval
applications".

http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#L4858

I assume that MESH terms are jargon whereas LCSH terms are more suitable
for laymen. I think the definition of skos:exactMatch is a pretty good
match for this situation.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 12:16 PM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: open-bibliography@lists.okfn.org; public-lld
> Subject: RE: New BNB sample data available
> 
> 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 18:31:49 UTC