- From: Aida Slavic <aida@acorweb.net>
- Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:31:42 +0000
- To: Dupriez Christophe <christophe_dupriez@yahoo.fr>
- CC: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, Leonard Will <L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk>, Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>, "public-swd-wg@w3.org" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, "public-esw-thes@w3.org" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Dear all, This may seem to be a bit of distraction from the present discussion but I would like to stress how important role standards like SKOS that are applied irrespective domains/sectors may play not only in its intended function but also in making people understand semantic relationships in knowledge organization systems. If standards representing vocabularies would be brought closer by their general structure, data naming etc. this would facilitate learning and understanding of vocabularies by people who do not have time or incentive to read books to learn about semantic factoring, pre-coordination, phase relationships, facets etc. We would much quicker achieve a critical mass of people necessary to make further steps apply and cross over from one standard to another, one vocabulary to another. Standards and data models are sometimes the best way of understanding data and their potential use. From that point of view 'instructive/best practice' dimension should ideally be incorporated in the standards. For what is worth, and in contrast to Antoine's view, I would rather that SKOS is created mirroring the knowledge of those who know how to use KOS rather than refelecting the lefel of KOS understanding KOS of an average tabula rasa implementor. One cannot avoid to learn once starting to implement a KOS - well, then it may as well learn it properly. Aida
Received on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 19:32:58 UTC