- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:17:05 +0200
- To: "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- CC: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
Hello, I think the page brings useful information regarding what's in the scope of SKOS core and what is not. I find the examples in the end especially useful. +1 for motivating the solution to ISSUE-33 Then (but perhaps it's for later ISSUE) the stupid questions, of course: - why should SKOS provide with the construct for collections, if these are mainly for display purposes? - if we consider that providing with skos:Collection is important enough, why proposing uses a half-baked solution with the Collection class but not the proper property (different from skos:broader) to link its instances to the concept(s) they are attached to? Antoine > Hi all, > > >> [1] >> <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/Semantics/Grouping?action=recall&rev=4> >> I would like to suggest that the Working Group accept [1] as >> a resolution of [ISSUE-33], then raise further issues >> concerning the generation and transfer of various different >> display types, including alphabetical and systematic >> thesaurus displays. >> > > As background to discussion of these further issues, I have written a wiki page on "presentation information" and defining the scope of SKOS: > > <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/PresentationInformation> > > Cheers, > > Alistair. > > > > > >> [ISSUE-33] <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/33> >> >> -- >> Alistair Miles >> Research Associate >> Science and Technology Facilities Council Rutherford Appleton >> Laboratory Harwell Science and Innovation Campus Didcot >> Oxfordshire OX11 0QX United Kingdom >> Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman >> Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk >> Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440 >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl] >>> Sent: 15 June 2007 15:27 >>> To: Miles, AJ (Alistair) >>> Cc: SWD WG; public-esw-thes@w3.org >>> Subject: Re: [SKOS] ISSUE-33 "Minimal Fix" Proposal >>> >>> Thanks for the answer. They confirm everything >>> >>>>> - relying on sophisticated algorithm to generate hierarchies for >>>>> grouping-aware applications >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Yes and no. The fact is that a typical "systematic display" >>>> >>> of a thesaurus or classification scheme incorporates a >>> >> certain amount >> >>> of "presentational" information - information about how to >>> >> lay things >> >>> out in 2 dimensions. I believe it should be out of scope >>> >> for SKOS to >> >>> convey presentational information. This means that, in >>> >> order to fully >> >>> convey a systematic presentation of a thesaurus or classification >>> scheme, you might need something other than SKOS. >>> >>>> However, in the absence of any presentational information, >>>> >>> there could >>> >>>> be a default method of constructing a systematic display. >>>> >> To handle >> >>>> SKOS grouping constructs, this would require an algorithm which is >>>> *fairly* sophisticated - certainly not straightforward to >>>> >> a novice >> >>>> hacker. The onus is on me to provide a reference implementation :) >>>> >>>> >>> my mistake, "generate" should have been "display" >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> - asking thesaurus builders to create explicit >>>>> >>> broader/narrower links >>> >>>>> between the concept generalizing the collection and the concepts >>>>> included in the collection (e.g. >>>>> ex:milk skos:narrower ex:cowmilk), >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Yes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> therefore ignoring the >>>>> level of the grouping in the explicitation of the >>>>> >>> conceptual hierarchy >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I'm not sure what you mean by this. >>>> >>>> >>> That we you design the conceptual hierarchy, you might have some >>> 'mental image' of it in your head, influenced by the >>> >> display of other >> >>> thesauri. >>> But you should ignore this image, and build the conceptual link not >>> considering the grouping node. >>> >>> Antoine >>> >>> >> > > >
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2007 07:48:53 UTC