RE: New BNB sample data available

 From the AAT FAQ:

"How do I know which is the "correct" term in a vocabulary record?
In many vocabulary records, synonyms and variant names refer to the  
same concept. There is often no single "correct" term for a concept.  
If users wish to control terminology with the vocabularies, they can  
consistently use the same term for the same concept. Terms at the top  
of the record in the Web displays are generally the name or term most  
often used in scholarly literature to refer to the concept ("preferred  
names/terms" or "descriptors"). Other terms in the record may also be  
flagged, including the singular form of the term in AAT and the common  
English version of the name in TGN. Learn about the data in each  
vocabulary record at About the AAT, About the ULAN, and About the TGN."

http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/faq.html#3
 From "About the AAT"

"Preferred Term
The flag preferred following a term indicates that the term is the  
so-called preferred term for the record. (The flag non-preferred is  
hidden in the display.)

Each record has one and only one default preferred term, flagged in  
order to provide a default term for the hierarchical and other  
displays (see also Language of the Terms below). The preferred term is  
always a descriptor. (The AAT may have multiple descriptors; see  
discussion below.) The preferred term may be used by catalogers who  
wish to apply the AAT as an authority, and consistently use a single  
term to refer to a concept. In the AAT, the preferred term is the most  
commonly used term in American English, based on usage in  
authoritative scholarly sources and general reference works."

http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/aat/about.html

The way I read this, the preferred term is preferred for the *display  
of the thesaurus,* but not necessarily for instance data. If that  
interpretation is correct it is an interesting twist.

Jeff, I don't believe AAT has been defined in RDF. In any case, when  
you look at the examples, the differences are not just language: there  
are often multiple altLabels for a single language. Also, since all  
prefLabels are English there is not definition of, for example, a  
French prefLabel or a German prefLabel, even though there may be  
multiple forms in those languages for a given term.

I'm not sure I'd consider this "application specific", as Antoine  
suggested. But in any case you would need a way to specify labels by  
some criterion so that they could be used when appropriate. I think  
that's what Marcia addressed. For example, in music uniform titles,  
you use the plural form of the type of musical composition  
(symphonies) unless the composer wrote only one, in which case you  
prefer the singular (symphony). There's a case where the context  
determines the preferred label within a single application. True,  
applications will have to make these decisions, but both forms are  
valid at the right time and place and each needs a way to be addressed.

I think the upshot is that SKOS covers the simplest case, and in many  
real life situations we won't be working with the simplest case.

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

> I tried to find some RDF for their thesaurus to see how they handled it,
> but couldn't find any examples. I got the same impression that their
> situation could be handled using skos:prefLabel by mapping them to
> language tags:
>
> http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/aat/AATCodeLookup.html?
> flag=#preferred
>
> Jeff
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] On
>> Behalf Of Antoine Isaac
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 4:58 PM
>> To: Karen Coyle
>> Cc: ZENG, MARCIA; public-lld
>> Subject: Re: New BNB sample data available
>>
>> Marcia, Karen
>>
>> A quick note: assuming that these display labels may be quite
>> application-specific, and of less
>> "important/preferred/standard/whatever" status, you may represent them
>> using specializations of skos:altLabel. For instance aat-
>> schema:aCommunitySpecificLabel (btw. I don't know what's like this in
>> AAT--I thought they had a pretty clear distinction between preferred
>> and non-preferred terms, cf. [1])
>>
>> Antoine
>>
>> [1]
>> http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/aat/about.html#info
>>
>> > Thanks, Marcia. It's great to have an actual example so I know I'm
>> not just making this up. :-)
>> >
>> > kc
>> >
>> > Quoting "ZENG, MARCIA" <mzeng@kent.edu>:
>> >
>> >> Karen,
>> >> I am just jumping into the discussion without reading previous
>> discussed issues completely so please ignore if my comments may not be
>> relevant. (I am not on open-bibliography@lists.okfn.org so I took it
>> out in this email.)
>> >>
>> >> A quick supporting fact: Getty's Art and Architecture Thesaurus is
> a
>> typical example of a schema allows multiple user-community-preferred
>> terms for the same concept. (So are other Getty vocabularies).
>> >>
>> >> Re your particular point on the prefLabel: In the FRSAD model, a
> set
>> of attributes for nomens (where the entity of nomen can be considered
>> as matching the skosxl:label) is defined in the model, including what
>> you indicated for community's preferences, i.e. 'audience' -- "The
>> community or user group for which the nomen is the preferred form."
>> >> Other attributes include: type of nomen, scheme, reference source,
>> representation, language, script, script conversion, form, time of
>> validity, and status. Again, additional attributes may be defined in a
>> specific implementation.
>> >> The FRSAD model also provides for relationships between different
>> types of entities and entities of the same type. Therefore between
>> nomens there also can be relationships.
>> >>
>> >> Using SKOSXL all these attributes should be able to be built in the
>> extension specification.
>> >> I consider FRSAD as a conceptual model which specified common
>> entities and attributes and relationships that required for subject
>> authority data. SKOS extensions can be the data models (vary) to
>> reflect these requirements.
>> >>
>> >> Marcia
>> >> p.s. There are limits of how FRSAD was models, e.g., using the
>> entity-relationship model. I hope the next generation of FR-family
> will
>> present a more up-to- date model.
>> >>
>> >> On 2/8/11 2:19 PM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Jeff, I'm not having trouble understanding this. I think I'm not
>> >> getting across to you, though. I do not want for there to be a
> karen
>> >> scheme and a jeff scheme. What I am advocating is that there could
>> be
>> >> a somebody scheme, and there could be different choices for
>> >> prefLabels. In fact, one person's altLabel may be another person's
>> >> prefLabel. SKOS cannot do this, but I think it could be needed.
> What
>> >> it comes down to is that there could be an identified *something*
>> >>
>> >> http://something.st/aThing
>> >>
>> >> and I may wish to label that as:
>> >> aabbcc
>> >>
>> >> and someone else may wish to label it as
>> >> zzyynn
>> >>
>> >> But we may want to use the same identifier for the purposes of
>> >> interoperability and for efficiency.
>> >>
>> >> To my mind, SKOS models the traditional thesaurus structure and its
>> >> use of a human-readable *identifier* too closely. Like many of the
>> >> other aspects that keep the "S" in "SKOS" this one I think will
>> limit
>> >> its usability in the end.
>> >>
>> >> kc
>> >>
>> >> Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>:
>> >>
>> >>> Karen,
>> >>>
>> >>> Let's use you and I as an example. Assume that this FRBR Event
>> already
>> >>> exists somewhere, but doesn't have any prefLabel assigned:
>> >>>
>> >>> ex:World_War_I a frbr:Event ;
>> >>> frbr:hasTerm "World War I" ;
>> >>> frbr:hasTerm "Great War" ;
>> >>> frbr:hasTerm "WWI" .
>> >>>
>> >>> If you want to assign a prefLabel for your community, you could do
>> so
>> >>> like this:
>> >>>
>> >>> karen:ww1 a skos:Concept ;
>> >>> skos:inScheme karen:myScheme ;
>> >>> skos:prefLabel "World War I" ;
>> >>> foaf:focus ex:World_War_I.
>> >>>
>> >>> I could do the same for my community:
>> >>>
>> >>> jeff:gw a skos:Concept ;
>> >>> skos:inScheme jeff:myScheme ;
>> >>> skos:prefLabel "Great War" ;
>> >>> foaf:focus ex:World_War_I .
>> >>>
>> >>> Here is a SPARQL query that would allow your community to
> determine
>> its
>> >>> prefLabel for the FRBR Event:
>> >>>
>> >>> SELECT ?prefLabel
>> >>> WHERE {
>> >>> ?concept
>> >>> skos:inScheme karen:myScheme ;
>> >>> skos:prefLabel ?prefLabel ;
>> >>> foaf:focus ex:World_War_I .
>> >>> }
>> >>>
>> >>> Does this help?
>> >>>
>> >>> Jeff
>> >>>
>> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>>> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
>> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 11:59 AM
>> >>>> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
>> >>>> Cc: open-bibliography@lists.okfn.org; public-lld
>> >>>> Subject: RE: New BNB sample data available
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > 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.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Jeff, I have no problem with MeSH and LCSH -- those are different
>> >>>> vocabularies, and often the terms are not equivalents. I'm
>> concerned
>> >>>> about future vocabularies when we've gotten vocabularies out
>> beyond
>> >>>> institutional silos and different folks want to be compatible but
>> do
>> >>>> not want to use the same display for their users. This would mean
>> >>>> using the same URI but a different human display. It seems to me
>> that
>> >>>> RDF would potentially allow that, but SKOS seems to close down
>> that
>> >>>> possibility.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> kc
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > 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
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> 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 Tuesday, 8 February 2011 23:06:44 UTC