LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ID Archives


ID Archives

ID Archives


ID@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ID Home

ID Home

ID  November 2011

ID November 2011

Subject:

Re: Types of changes documented in <http://id.loc.gov/authorities/feed/>?

From:

Ryan Shaw <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Authorities and Vocabularies Service Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 8 Nov 2011 13:18:02 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (35 lines)

How far back does the SKOSification of LCSH concepts go? Would a
heading deleted in 1992 have a corresponding SKOS URI? (The change
feed seems to go back to 1986, though I can't seem to find any old
deleted entries.)

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Simon Spero <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> A merge of two headings will result in at least one previously authorized
> heading becoming a UF.
>
> A split is harder to automatically recognize, as the clues won't generally
> be visible in the skos (part of the concept may remain attached to the old
> label, with a new NT; or the old heading may be eliminated, and the new
> headings be co-hyponyms  of the older, now no longer authorized term. (This
> latter pattern, which is essentially  USE A or B, can be modeled in skos by
> creating a concept with no prefLabel, the old term as altLabel, with the new
> terms as NT, and all common hyperonyms as BT.
>
> Simon
>
> On Nov 7, 2011 4:54 PM, "Ryan Shaw" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Ed Summers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> > If you are able to diff the last concept you have against the updated
>> > one I think you can characterize the changes.
>>
>> That should cover changes to the labels or relationships associated
>> with a concept, but I'm especially interested in cases where we might
>> want to say that a concept "merged" into another or "split" in to two
>> or more new ones. And I'm not sure those could be detected from
>> diffing alone. (In fact I'm not even sure whether there would be
>> agreement on what kinds of changes could be characterized as "merges"
>> or "splits.")
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

February 2020
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
April 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2017
July 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
March 2015
February 2015
October 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
March 2014
January 2014
November 2013
September 2013
August 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
November 2009
June 2009
May 2009

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager