RE: New BNB sample data available

Simon,

 

I'm confused by your statement "the Concepts have the same extension". 

 

I think we agree that the MESH and LCSH Concepts are owl:differentFrom
despite their skos:exactMatch relationship. I assume this is the source
of Karen's confusion on the identity of "the thing" (concept) they
presumably have in common. 

 

I admit this proposal is disconcerting because it uses both skos:Concept
and frbr:Concept, but it would resolve the problem of different
prefLabels in different schemes for the same thing. For example:

 

mesh:concept1 a skos:Concept ;

                skos:inScheme mesh:scheme ;

                skos:exatcMatch lcsh:concept1 ;

                skos:prefLabel "The MESH term" ;

                foaf:focus frbr:concept1 .

 

lcsh:concept1 a skos:Concept ;

                skos:inScheme lcsh:scheme ;

                skos:exactMatch mesh:concept1 ;

                skos:prefLabel "The LCSH term" ;

                foaf:focus frbr:concept1 .

 

# The primary entity

frbr:concept1 a frbr:Concept ;

                frbr:hasTerm "The LCSH term" ;

                frbr:hasTerm "The MESH term" ;

                frbr:hasTerm "other term" .

 

Note that FRBR:Concept doesn't have a property to express prefLabel (and
IMO shouldn't). This same pattern would work for other types of primary
entities like frbr:Person, frbr:CorporateBody, etc.

 

Jeff

 

From: sesuncedu@gmail.com [mailto:sesuncedu@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Simon Spero
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 4:33 PM
To: Karen Coyle
Cc: Young,Jeff (OR); open-bibliography@lists.okfn.org; public-lld
Subject: Re: New BNB sample data available

 

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

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

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

	
	
	kc

 

The constraint is stronger than that; If two Things have different
preferred labels  in a given language in the same conceptScheme, then it
is necessarily true that they have different identifiers, *and* that the
identifiers are owl:differentFrom.

 

 Notice that LCSH has different schemes for juvenile and non-juvenile
headings (some of which have the same preferred label/Descriptor).
Terms can be in different registers
<http://www.ttt.org/clsframe/datcats02.html#register>  without being in
different languages.  There's even an ISO registry of register -
http://www.isocat.org/rest/dc/1988 .

 

Also, if distinct uris which refer to Concepts which exactMatch, the
Concepts have the same extension, but the uris need not refer to the
same Concept object (in fact, in the case discussed above, the URIs
cannot be referring to the same object).

 

BTW, SKOS explicitly declines to make exactMatch reflexive,  though it
does make it Symmetric and Transitive, which means that if A exactly
matches anything, it exactly matches itself.  

 

Simon