Re: [SKOS] thesaurus USE patterns

Hi Jakob,

Sorry for the delay...

>Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:
>
>  
>
>>http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ThesaurusPatterns?action=recall&rev=4
>>
>>[DONE] ACTION: Alistair to raise a new issue about USE X + Y and USE X OR Y [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-swd-minutes.html#action07]
>>    
>>
>
>I just wanted to add this to the wiki but it is protected so here my
>solution. You already included the parts in SWD SKOS Requirement List -
>now you only have to put the pieces together:
>
>
>USE X + Y and USE X OR Y is semantically related to:
>
>SKOS-R-ConceptualMappingLinks
>(http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/CandidateReqList)
>  
>
Not really: SKOS-R-ConceptualMappingLinks is about links between 
concepts from different concept schemes. Here we have:
- elements from a same CS
- elements that are not at the same modeling level: X, Y are more like 
concepts (in SKOS, prefLabel univovally associated to their 
skos:Concept) and Z is an alternative term, never used as a subject or 
in a subject, so not a candidate for a concept.

>SKOS-R-IndexingAndNonIndexingConcepts.
>(http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/CandidateReqList)
>  
>
Neither. But here you were tricked by my poor wording. 'non-indexing 
concepts' refers to conceptual entities, that is things that could be 
converted into kind skos:Concepts (they are essentially of conceptual 
nature, they have labels/captions as well as BT/NT/RT links), but which 
cannot be used alone as subjects for a document (which would somehow 
undermine the range assertion for skos:subject).
Typical examples appear in coordinated languages (e.g. UDC, LCSH), which 
propose a range of auxiliaries/qualifiers used to narrow down the 
meaning a another concept which will be the main subject of a document.

>and
>
>SKOS-I-coordination-8 (http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosIssuesSandbox)
>
>which is as far as I understand equal to
>
>SKOS-R-ConceptComposition
>(http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/CandidateReqList)
>  
>
I agree with this link you make between this USE+ and 
SKOS-I-Coordination, since  the + and OR features of this issue 
explicitly call for some sort of coordination.
And as said in my other mail [1], I also agree with the link you make 
between  SKOS-I-coordination-8 and SKOS-R-ConceptComposition, even if 
the consequence was not the one you foresaw perhaps ;-)

> I will pretty soon remove  SKOS-I-ConceptComposition  from the issue 
> sandbox and link the SKOS-R-ConceptComposition requirement to # 
> SKOS-I-coordination-8 


Moving back to your solution, it is interesting, even if...

>
>Implementation:
>
>Say you have the statement "Z" USE "X + Y", then:
>
>1. "Z" is a NonIndexingConcept
>2. "X + Y" is a coordination/composition of Concepts
>3. the "USE"-statement is a Mapping
>  
>
Well, what I said about non-indexing concepts and mapping would invalid 
this view.
Indeed I think we should go for a simpler solution, using altLabel:
1. "X + Y" is a coordination
2. "X +Y" skos:altLabel Z

>The "Z USE X OR Y" stament does not need special treatement neither:
>
>a) Either you define two concepts "X" and "Y" with alterative Label "Z"
>b) Or you define "X", "Y" as Concepts, "Z" as a NonIndexingConcept and a
>Mappings between "Z" and "X" and "Z" and "Y"
>  
>
I think I definitevely favor the first solution (actually your two 
solutions actually differ in the status you give to Z, and not really 
the way you (don't) deal with coordination issues). This way of doing 
would mirrors my natural interpretation of altLabel (and USE/USED FOR). 
But I think we would need expert's advice on that.

>Voilą!
>  
>
Thanks for the help, by the way!

Antoine

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Feb/0068.html

Received on Wednesday, 14 February 2007 11:39:17 UTC