- From: Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 11:07:31 -0400
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: public-xg-lld@w3.org
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 07:55:05AM +0200, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> It has always amazed me how library people are allergic to any terminological
> generalization of "pre-coordination" (it's about assembling different
> concepts together, no? So a kind of combination...). Anyway, what was
> bothering me is that the previously written "concept coordination" was
> looking too vague while denoting a quite precise thing ("concept" here is
> much more precise than many other occurrences of the same word in the rest of
> the text). Having an all-precise wording such as "pre-coordinated subject
> heading" is also very fine by me!
>
> Changes made at
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_recommendations_page_take2&diff=6287&oldid=6269
Antoine,
The only problem with this new wording:
[SKOS]... does not include mechanisms for representing pre-coordinated subject headings...
is that "SKOS" (or RDF) does in fact include a "mechanism for representing
pre-coordinated subject headings": you simply give them URIs! A wording like
"representing the component concepts of pre-coordinated subject headings" gets
closer, but there, too, one could argue that you just give the concepts URIs
(not that those concepts are necessarily related to the pre-coordinated subject
headings, if you see what I mean). In other words, that wording doesn't quite
capture what you wanted to say, Antoine, with "combining concepts".
If I can think of a better wording, I'll post it... Maybe something like
"representing pre-coordinated subject headings as combinations of component
concepts"...?
Tom
--
Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
Received on Wednesday, 7 September 2011 15:08:07 UTC