Re: Presentations from the recent London Meeting
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Ed Summers e...@pobox.com wrote: On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 1:52 AM, Mikael Nilsson mik...@nilsson.name wrote: That page gives me You do not yet have access to this conference's presentations. :-) I see the same thing. The link that can be seen is not the true link.. If you go via the main page ( http://dcevents.dublincore.org/index.php/BibData/fyo/index ), there are links to the individual presentations and papers (where written). For example, Barbara Tillett's presentationhttp://dcevents.dublincore.org/index.php/BibData/fyo/paper/view/114/43 and paperhttp://dcevents.dublincore.org/index.php/BibData/fyo/paper/view/114/44 ; Diane's presentationhttp://dcevents.dublincore.org/index.php/BibData/fyo/paper/view/116/46 Simon
Re: The meaning of Subject (and Coverage)
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Thomas Baker t...@tombaker.org wrote: I recently had a chat about this with Gordon, who points out -- and I'll let him elaborate -- that current notions of subject (aboutness) do not treat spatial or temporal topics separately from any other topics. I am not sure that this is entirely correct, at least in the case of the semantics of LCSH. It is possible for a concept intentionally referring to a 4-space region to be the main subject of a work- for example a film about France. However, in other cases a topical or other concept may be sub-divided so as to cover a narrower portion of the concept occurring within or relating to a 4-space region. For example, a documentary about 20th century french films. The full semantics are somewhat more complicated, due to the syntactic structure of subdivided headings, which does not reduce to a eufaceted structure. Simon [LCSH is strictly speaking 3d+1, but it's easier to think of it in 4d terms if one wants to also address FAST]
Re: New RDA Vocabularies available (plus other info)
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Karen Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Owen, we are only using SKOS for the value vocabularies, not the RDA elements. The question Pete brought up was whether we consider RDA term lists like base material to be concepts or things. At this point, I think that separating the many and varied RDA value lists into those that are concepts and those that are things would be very difficult (I'm sure we'd find one that is a combination of the two!), so my preference is to code them all in SKOS for now (we have a deadline) so that RDA work can move forward. SKOS Concepts are subjects; the SKOS relationships are relationships between subjects. The extension of the subject Unicorns is the set of all works about Unicorns. The extension of the owl class Unicorn is the set of all Unicorns. (http://www.ibiblio.org/fred2.0/wordpress/?p=30) See Svenonius(2000, 130): *Referential Semantics* Subject language terms differ *referentially* from words used in ordinary language. The former do not refer to objects in the real world or concepts in a mentalistic world but to subjects. As a name of a subject, the term * Butterflies* refers not to actual butterflies but rather to the set of all indexed documents about butterflies. In a natural language the extension, or extensional meaning, of a word is the class of entities denoted by that word, such as the class consisting of all butterflies. In a subject language the extension of a term is the class of all documents about what the term denotes, such as all documents about butterflies. Simon [Svenonius(2000)] Elaine Svenonius. *The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization*. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 2000. ISBN 0262194333 (hc : alk. paper). URL http://www.netlibrary.com/AccessProduct.aspx? ProductId=39954.
Re: New RDA Vocabularies available (plus other info)
You still might want to be using OWL instead of SKOS for this project; by defining the elements in terms of Classes, you can restrict which values can go with which fields. For example, you can require that content and carrier be compatible. Simon On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Karen Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jon Phipps wrote: As usual the problem revolves around identity of 'real' things versus identity of conceptual surrogates. We're convinced that identifying value vocabularies as concepts is both more generalizable and more semantically accurate. In other words, is a list of materials a list of actual materials (could I cut myself on the rdvocab:glass) or a list of conceptual surrogates for those materials? I agree with Jon. The idea of describing the real world might be useful in some situations (say, in a warehouse application) but it's not how catalogers and bibliographers think about or use their data. There is neither a desire nor an attempt to have real world accuracy and they aren't defining the real world things. Many if not most of the terms are artifices and wouldn't be appropriate for real world things. This means that someone wanting vocabularies for glass and rocks and metal won't be able to use the rdvocab terms, but I think that's actually a Good Thing. kc -- --- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234
