- From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 19:10:53 -0000
- To: "'public-swbp-wg@w3.org'" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Here's some prose in response to ACTION: Alistair make explicit in skos core doc the fact that you're trying to deal with potential for multiple thesauri using the same terms, overlap etc., different from paper publishing world ... In controlled vocabularies, a set of 'terms' are published, and the use of each of those terms is constrained within a specific, single meaning. Often, the specific meaning of a term in the context of a controlled vocabulary is different from the meaning usually associated with that term in the context of normal discourse. This poses problems when controlled vocabularies are used in a global context, such as the semantic web. Two vocabularies may use the same term to mean different things. For example, the term 'laboratory test' from the AOD (see <http://etoh.niaaa.nih.gov/AODVol1/aodhqha.htm#HF>) has quite a different scope to the term 'laboratory tests' from the CAB (see <http://194.203.77.66/right_thes.asp?ExactMatch=laboratory%20tests>). For example, the term 'health care' from the CAB has the scope note 'health care administration and management; for health care facilities and manpower use health services or one of its narrower terms', and is clearly narrower in scope than the term 'health care' from the GCL <http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/schemasstandards/gcl.asp?term=1506>. Therefore, in order to use controlled vocabularies in a global context, there must be some means by which *the concept* associated with a term from a controlled vocabulary can be uniquely identified. --- Alistair Miles Research Associate CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Building R1 Room 1.60 Fermi Avenue Chilton Didcot Oxfordshire OX11 0QX United Kingdom Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
Received on Thursday, 18 November 2004 19:11:28 UTC