Quoting Simon Spero <[log in to unmask]>:
> The MADS/RDF Vocabulary Description
> <http://www.loc.gov/standards/mads/rdf/>states (§2.3) that
> "ComplexType describes [...] types by aggregating two or
> more Authority and/or two or more Variant records each of a
> SimpleType". Thus, it is not possible for a ComplexType to have a component
> list with only one member.
Simon thanks for finding the relevant section. Now I have a couple of
1) if you have, for example, a simple geographic property, how do you
know if it is a simple subject heading or something that can only be
used in a complex subject? A less ambiguous example might be a
temporalElement, something like "1940-1945." This probably cannot be
used as a subject heading by itself. Is there a rule in the OWL data
that indicates this? (I believe that I am referring to the
free-floating subdivisions that cannot be used alone, but there may be
other such subdivision types in LCSH as well.)
2) Isn't it the case that a variant heading could be composed of a
variant simple type in position 1 followed by authoritative simple
types in the subsequent positions? (and perhaps even an authoritative
entry in position one and a variant entry in a subsequent position?)
3) What does the "and/or" indicate in the above section? What does it
mean to have two or more authoritative AND two or more variant records
in a complex record?
I suspect that there is something buried deep in the OWL definitions
that may clear this up, but like my first question, I haven't found it.
> However, this same quotation is a good example of some of the fundamental
> confusions that render the ontology as a whole inconsistent.
> - A restriction is given in the text but not stated in the ontology (that
> component list must be a List with at least two members, and that each
> member must be a SimpleType and either an Authority or a Variant)l. This
> restriction can be expressed in OWL.
> - Authority and Variant are disjoint (one is a subclass of skos:Concept;
> the other a subclass of skosxl:Label). It is not clear what
> intuitive class
> corresponds to "Concept or Label".
> - The examples that use a componentList contain members that are
> SimpleTypes but which are not marked as either being instances
> Authority or
> of Variant.
> - It is not intuitively clear what is denoted by the aggregation of a
> Label with a Concept.
> - The style of specification makes it difficult to express rules for the
> order of subdivisions that are part of the SCM, making it less useful to
> organizations following LC cataloging and policy standards (for
> example, LC)
> The specification fails to capture any of the semantics of coordinated
> headings. There are some semantics that differ depending on whether one is
> applying a faceted or subdivision interpretation to these coordinate
> headings, but much of the semantics is common to both, and none are
> I would avoid using the word
> * here, as it has pre-existing Ontological meaning. §2.2 of MADS/RDF shows
> an eliminativist approach to Properties that would be significant were it
> not clear from the text that it it is un-intentional as well as
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net