This is an archive of an inactive wiki and cannot be modified.

Defining Presentation Information

This page discusses the notion of "presentation information" in the transfer and display of thesauri and classification schemes.

The purpose of this discussion is to establish clear criteria for the scope of SKOS - what it is, and is not, required to represent.

This discussion is closely related to the discussion of SkosDesign/GroupingConstructs.

There are two well-known types of display for thesauri: alphabetic display and systematic display.

Thesaurus Alphabetic Display

From [ISO 2788-1986] section 9.2 ("Alphabetic Display"):

For example:

Note, however, that there are no absolute rules for constructing an alphabetic display. For example, all of the references (SN, BT etc.) are optional.

Now consider the following RDF graph:

# conventional prefixes

ex:A skos:prefLabel "OPTICAL EQUIPMENT"@en;
  skos:narrower ex:B.

ex:B skos:prefLabel "CAMERAS"@en;
  skos:narrower ex:C.

ex:C skos:prefLabel "UNDERWATER CAMERAS"@en;
  skos:narrower ex:D;
  skos:related ex:E.

ex:D skos:prefLabel "UNDERWATER CINE CAMERAS"@en.
  
ex:E skos:prefLabel "DIVING"@en.

Given this graph, it is possible to define an algorithm to generate a default thesaurus alphabetic display such as the example shown above, where all references (SN, BT etc.) are shown and in the order suggested by [ISO 2788-1986].

However, the algorithm would need to be supplied with additional information, such as font family, font size, rules for font weight and text decoration, horizontal indentation of references, vertical spacing between entries etc.

Also, as noted above, there are no absolute rules for constructing an alphabetic display, and all of the references (SN, BT etc.) are optional.

Therefore, the following statements are proposed to define the scope of SKOS, and specifically to define the requirements for coneying information required to construct an alphabetic display:

Thesaurus Systematic Display

From [ISO 2788-1986] section 9.3 ("Systematic Display"):

An example of a systematic display:

301 OPTICAL EQUIPMENT
302   CAMERAS
        RT PHOTOGRAPHY 824
303     MOVING PICTURE CAMERAS
          By medium
304       CINE CAMERAS
306       TELEVISION CAMERAS

Now, consider the following RDF graph:

# conventional prefixes

ex:A skos:prefLabel "OPTICAL EQUIPMENT"@en;
  skos:narrower ex:B.

ex:B skos:prefLabel "CAMERAS"@en;
  skos:related ex:C;
  skos:narrower ex:D.

ex:C skos:prefLabel "PHOTOGRAPHY"@en.

ex:D skos:prefLabel "MOVING PICTURE CAMERAS"@en;
  skos:narrower ex:E, ex:F.

ex:E skos:prefLabel "CINE CAMERAS"@en.

ex:F skos:prefLabel "TELEVISION CAMERAS"@en.

[] rdf:type skos:Collection;
  rdfs:label "By medium"@en;
  skos:member ex:E, ex:F.

Given this graph, it is possible to define an algorithm that will generate a default systematic thesaurus display such as the one shown above. However, note that "thesauri differ widely in their approaches to the relative importance and functions of these two sections [systematic and alphabetic], and also in the arrangement and kind of relational information provided in each..." [ISO 2788-1986]

Therefore, the following statement is proposed to define the scope of SKOS, and specifically the requirements for conveying information required to construct a systematic display:

Discussion and Implications

Consider the following extract from a systematic display of the Art and Architecture thesaurus:

Styles and Periods
  <styles and periods by region>
    <The Islamic World>
      Saracenic
      pre-Islamic
      <Islamic World dynastic styles and periods>
        Orthodox Caliphate
        Umayyad
        Abbasid

If these proposals for limiting the scope of SKOS are accepted, this means that, while an application could use the default algorithm to generate the above systematic display from some SKOS data, it would not be obliged to. It could also convey the systematic display by another means, in parallel to the SKOS data.

This is particularly relevant where indentation and the tree-like layout of a systematic display does not correspond to broader/narrower thesaurus relationships.

For example, the following (from [ISO 2788-1986]) is given as an example of a systematic display where indentation does not convey a broader/narrower relationship:

BOOKS
  Operations
    BINDING
    PRINTING

This is revealed when you consider the corresponding alphabetic display for this thesaurus:

BOOKS
  RT BINDING
  RT PRINTING


References