- From: Houghton,Andrew <houghtoa@oclc.org>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:20:20 -0500
- To: "Ed Summers" <ehs@pobox.com>, "SWD Working Group" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
- Cc: "Barbara B Tillett" <btil@loc.gov>, "Clay Redding" <cred@loc.gov>
There is probably another approach, Solution C, that you could use which would be to create a controlled vocabulary of aspects (facets?) in SKOS, e.g., topical, geographic, chronological, personal names, corporate names, etc. and then use skos:broadMatch to link to them from lcsh, lcshac, naf, lctgm, gmgpc, etc. and would also allow other vocabulary maintainers to assert that their concepts are part of a broader scope. The downside to making lcsh:genreConceptScheme is that its in the lcsh namespace. So would you be proposing the same solution for naf, lctgm, gmgpc, etc., e.g., lctgm:genreConceptScheme and gmgpc:genreConceptScheme? These aspects (facets?) don't seem like concept schemes, e.g., versions or editions of the vocabulary. Solution B seems to me to be better modeled than Solution A, but you could also achieve the same thing without subclassing skos:Concept and use dc:type with a controlled list of names, e.g., genre, personal name, topical, etc. which again could be used by other vocabulary maintainers, but this mimics Solution C without anybody being able to assert that their concepts are part of a broader scope. Yet another approach, Solution D, would be to use collections and assert that a concept is in a particular collection, e.g., topical, geographic, chronological, etc. From the SKOS reference: "Collections are useful where a group of concepts shares something in common, and it is convenient to group them under a common label, or where some concepts can be placed in a meaningful order." Seems to me that the 1XX tags in MARC-21 fit the definition of collections. Just my 2 cents, Andy. > -----Original Message----- > From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-swd-wg- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ed Summers > Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 11:44 AM > To: SWD Working Group; public-esw-thes@w3.org > Cc: Barbara B Tillett; Clay Redding > Subject: use of skos:inScheme and rdf:type in SKOS modeling > > > Hi All, > > I am trying to solicit some responses to a particular SKOS modeling > question I have. I apologize in advance if similar questions have come > up and been answered before. > > Some initial work [1] has been done to examine how the Library of > Congress Subject Headings [2] can be represented as SKOS. Since the > Répertoire d'autorité-matière encyclopédique et alphabétique > unifiéshares (RAMEAU) [3] shares some lineage with LCSH, it is hoped > that this effort could also inform a SKOS representation of RAMEAU as > well. > > The LCSH vocabulary has different types of concepts within it: > topical, geographic, chronological, personal names, corporate names > ... to name a few. It is anticipated that use cases within the library > community will require applications to be able to distinguish between > the types of concepts. There's been some private discussion about the > best way to use SKOS to achieve this granularity. The thought was that > perhaps it would be better to have that discussion in the open. > > Solution A is to group them into sub concept schemes using > skos:inScheme, while also keeping the concepts part of the larger LCSH > concept scheme: > > lcsh:sh85124200 a skos:Concept ; > skos:prefLabel "Sociology"@en ; > skos:inScheme lcsh:topicConceptScheme ; > skos:inScheme lcsh:conceptScheme . > > lcsh:sh85056381 a skos:Concept ; > skos:prefLabel "Grand Canyon (Ariz.)" ; > skos:inScheme lcsh:geographicConceptScheme ; > skos:inScheme lcsh:conceptScheme . > > Solution B is to create extensions of skos:Concept such that: > > lcsh:TopicalConcept rdfs:subClassOf skos:Concept . > lcsh:GeographicConcept rdfs:subClassOf skos:Concept . > > lcsh:sh85124200 a lcsh:TopicalConcept ; > skos:prefLabel "Sociology"@en ; > skos:inScheme lcsh:conceptScheme . > > lcsh:sh85056381 a lcsh:GeographicConcept ; > skos:prefLabel "Grand Canyon (Ariz.)" ; > skos:inScheme lcsh:conceptScheme . > > The discussion so far has centered around two issues. > > 1. A may result in better tool support since it does not require > inferencing > 2. B uses rdfs:type instead of skos:inScheme to indicate the type of a > concept...which fits in better with RDF as it is deployed on the web. > > Perhaps there are more arguments in favor or against? One counter > argument to 1 is that serializations of B could include asserted > triples for tool convenience. > > lcsh:sh85056381 a lcsh:GeographicConcept, skos:Concept ; > skos:prefLabel "Grand Canyon (Ariz.)" ; > skos:inScheme lcsh:conceptScheme . > > If you have a particular opinion about this your feedback would be most > welcome. > > //Ed > > [1] http://dcpapers.dublincore.org/ojs/pubs/article/view/916 > [2] http://www.loc.gov/aba/cataloging/subject/ > [3] http://rameau.bnf.fr/ >
Received on Thursday, 29 January 2009 18:22:10 UTC