RE: New BNB sample data available

I agree they use different identifiers. Why is this a problem?

Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

I agree that you have stated these as equivalents, but do you agree  
that these two concepts use different identifiers?

kc

Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>:

> 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
>>
>
>
>
>



-- 
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 19:00:28 UTC