|Rob Tice||Sep 28, 2008 11:56 pm|
|De Smedt Johan||Sep 29, 2008 12:15 am|
|Sini, Margherita (KCEW)||Sep 29, 2008 1:30 am|
|Aida Slavic||Sep 29, 2008 2:13 am|
|De Smedt Johan||Sep 29, 2008 2:26 am|
|Sini, Margherita (KCEW)||Sep 29, 2008 2:32 am|
|Rob Tice||Sep 29, 2008 3:30 am|
|De Smedt Johan||Sep 29, 2008 4:05 am|
|Aida Slavic||Sep 29, 2008 4:06 am|
|Rob Tice||Sep 29, 2008 4:53 am|
|Sini, Margherita (KCEW)||Sep 29, 2008 5:05 am|
|Sini, Margherita (KCEW)||Sep 29, 2008 10:48 am|
|Houghton,Andrew||Sep 29, 2008 11:07 am|
|Sini, Margherita (KCEW)||Sep 29, 2008 9:13 pm|
|Alan Ruttenberg||Sep 29, 2008 9:29 pm|
|Sini, Margherita (KCEW)||Sep 29, 2008 11:00 pm|
|Alan Ruttenberg||Sep 29, 2008 11:26 pm|
|Antoine Isaac||Sep 30, 2008 2:55 am|
|Stephen Bounds||Sep 30, 2008 3:49 am|
|Leonard Will||Sep 30, 2008 4:43 am|
|Panzer,Michael||Oct 1, 2008 8:19 am|
|Joseph Tennis||Oct 1, 2008 1:02 pm|
|Sini, Margherita (KCEW)||Oct 1, 2008 1:04 pm|
|Alan Ruttenberg||Oct 2, 2008 3:16 am|
|Antoine Isaac||Oct 2, 2008 7:23 am|
|Alistair Miles||Oct 2, 2008 9:29 am|
|Sini, Margherita (KCEW)||Oct 2, 2008 11:27 am|
|Subject:||RE: revisions and change in skos|
|From:||Sini, Margherita (KCEW) (Marg...@fao.org)|
|Date:||Sep 29, 2008 2:32:45 am|
What we have done is that we have versioned the full scheme:
- scheme "AGRIS/CARIS Classification scheme" - scheme "AGRIS/CARIS Classification scheme (from 1975 to 1080) - Deprecated"
They can have different concepts, defined differently.
Hope this helps Margherita
-----Original Message----- From: publ...@w3.org on behalf of De Smedt Johan Sent: Mon 9/29/2008 11:26 To: Aida Slavic; De Smedt Johan Cc: Rob Tice; publ...@w3.org Subject: RE: revisions and change in skos
I agree concepts do not die.
In some historic applications though you want to use the concept scheme as a navigation structure. So to know what concepts are applicable at a given time, you create versions of them as I explained.
So indeed you want to know old and depricated concepts (and labels). However, the application requirement we have is to be able to provide a concept scheme as it was on a specific time.
I do not consider this to be in contradiction with the standard.
Hope this clarifies our use.
kr, Johan De Smedt. =================== -----Original Message----- From: publ...@w3.org [mailto:publ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Aida Slavic Sent: Monday, 29 September, 2008 11:14 To: De Smedt Johan Cc: Rob Tice; publ...@w3.org Subject: Re: revisions and change in skos
What is a 'version concept'? I am not sure is it only a casual use of the expression 'concept' instead of 'term' that causes problem - but it may be worth to be more precise...
> - URI are forever > - the skos:Concept may be constraind in time using an applicability
period > - the skos Concept has a creation date. modification date
and > version(=introduction version) property > - semantic relations are not versioned (skos would be more difficult to > accommodate that)
- Next to semantic relations, change-notes are used on versioned >
concepts. > These change notes contain references to earlier/newr versions of a > concept
concept is an idea - this is the level SKOS is supposed to capture by assigning an URI to this idea. New concepts can emerge - semantic field of on concept can split into to or two concepts can be merged to create a new concept. But in principle concepts themselves don't die, disappear, change - so in principle URI is forever. For SKOS two concepts from two different KOS schemes are always two different concepts between which one can state the level of similarity. To what degree two vocabularies speaks of the same concepts can be stated through alignment/mapping - and is defined by the mapping relationship. But even when we state that two concepts means the 'same/equivalent' what is meant is that their semantic fields overlap sufficiently for us to safely operate with them as if they are the same.
Labels are sphere of practical use. Relationship between concepts and terms (labels) is one to many. In real life have to add constraints to the use of labels (preferred term) or change label for practical reasons. Labels (i.e. relationship between concept and label) can become depricated within certain sphere of use and in certain time - but this has nothing to do with the concept itself.
To make it more complicated - in principle in information indexing and retrieval we need to preserve "the knowledge and the history of label/concept relationship" - simply because older recorded documents may have these labels used in the meaning that was relevant for the time when document was created. Good example are geographical and geo-political entities, historical entities such as countries that don't exist anymore, political entities that existed in certain time on which we still have documents. Then also we need to know old and depricated term(s) for entities we now call differently in order to be able to retrieve information on them from the period when they were called differently.
I wonder whether my understanding here is correct - but I certainly don't want to distract Rob and others trying to a good job here.