1 / 7

Discussion Items

Discussion Items. NKOS Workshop Denver, CO June 11, 2005. Highlights. To what extent does Z39.19 address the various uses that have been put forth here. Still need to create a broader standard. Construct systems for multiple purposes. Clear distinction between concepts and terms is not made.

huela
Download Presentation

Discussion Items

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Discussion Items NKOS Workshop Denver, CO June 11, 2005

  2. Highlights • To what extent does Z39.19 address the various uses that have been put forth here. Still need to create a broader standard. Construct systems for multiple purposes. Clear distinction between concepts and terms is not made. • Standards alignment and best practice for practitioners. • Standards are often obstacles to adoption.

  3. Highlights • Need to think at the application level and sometimes need different models. • Coherent commentary and examples of use for particular reasons. • Generate a variety of formats from a model that meets your own needs with understanding that you don’t want to lose information. Transformation. • Need for tools to allow users to create a resource that can then generate multiple formats.

  4. Highlights • Taxonomy of KOSs. • When we talk about the standards we should deal with the applications and run particular use cases and tasks. • Give NISO some messages about what is the next step, since often these are missing in people’s understanding. • No guidelines about how to apply. • Need for a single system that can produce a variety of KOSs.

  5. Highlights • Differences in the data and text communities. Text community generally well represented in NKOS and in the standards, but data is not. Requires an expansion of the way that we think. • Dealing with multiple formats, genres, etc. • Dealing with non-text. • Dealing with audiences at various levels. • Dealing with local usage versus general usage.

  6. Action Items/Research Agenda • More about KOS services. • Put additional emphasis on actual uses and war stories. • Presentation of implementations at milestones – here is where I want to go and help in getting there from others. • Integrated KOS development tools. • Comparison of best uses of the various KOS tools. • When is symbolic modeling the best tool for the job. • Meeting with the linguistics community to look at approaches and where search engines are going (NLP). • Tools to help analyze other types of data such as gene sequences, chemical structures and can any of these techniques be applied to other types.

  7. Outreach to other communities of practitioners where they could utilize what we have or where we could use their tools. • Pat – pilot project with the OW committee – maybe ecology, medicine, where an upper ontology might be able to be used for this. • Plug for NKOS workshop at ECDL, Vienna. NRHM (an NKOS issue is coming up next year). • Dublin Core conference has approached NKOS for a session there.

More Related