Discussion #2688
Updated by Christian Ansorge almost 5 years ago
<p>Dear colleagues,</p>
<p>While I had yesterday another short discussion about codelist implementation a interesting question come up.</p>
<p>How shall we express constraints between codelists. For example in protected sites are codelists interconnected. Which codelist you have to use is depend on a prior code selection. This mechanism is sufficiently described in the Technical Guidelines. My question is how these constraints and dependencies shall be documented in the case of an extension which is beyond the description in technical guidelines? I added an example which better explaines the case below.</p>
<p>For me there ideas and questions, which I would like to discuss or get feedback on:</p>
<ul>
<li>The constraint shall be clearly mentioned or explained (directly or via link to the extention specifications) in the definition of the concept (e.g. "cdda")</li>
<li>The constraint shall be clearly mentioned or explained (directly or via link to the extention specifications) in the definition of the concept scheme (e.g. CddaExtension:DesignationSchemeValue)</li>
<li>Is there a way to express this constrain in SKOS?</li>
<li>Is there a way in SKOS to point to a specification of a concept or concept scheme (e.g. the extention specifications) as the definition might not be ideal place for it?</li>
<li>To what degree this meta information shall be available on the RoR level?</li>
</ul>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p>Chris</p>
<p><img alt="" data-rich-file-id="455" src="/system/rich/rich_files/rich_files/000/000/455/original/CDDA_extension.jpg" style="height: 478px; width: 1200px;" /></p>
<p>While I had yesterday another short discussion about codelist implementation a interesting question come up.</p>
<p>How shall we express constraints between codelists. For example in protected sites are codelists interconnected. Which codelist you have to use is depend on a prior code selection. This mechanism is sufficiently described in the Technical Guidelines. My question is how these constraints and dependencies shall be documented in the case of an extension which is beyond the description in technical guidelines? I added an example which better explaines the case below.</p>
<p>For me there ideas and questions, which I would like to discuss or get feedback on:</p>
<ul>
<li>The constraint shall be clearly mentioned or explained (directly or via link to the extention specifications) in the definition of the concept (e.g. "cdda")</li>
<li>The constraint shall be clearly mentioned or explained (directly or via link to the extention specifications) in the definition of the concept scheme (e.g. CddaExtension:DesignationSchemeValue)</li>
<li>Is there a way to express this constrain in SKOS?</li>
<li>Is there a way in SKOS to point to a specification of a concept or concept scheme (e.g. the extention specifications) as the definition might not be ideal place for it?</li>
<li>To what degree this meta information shall be available on the RoR level?</li>
</ul>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p>Chris</p>
<p><img alt="" data-rich-file-id="455" src="/system/rich/rich_files/rich_files/000/000/455/original/CDDA_extension.jpg" style="height: 478px; width: 1200px;" /></p>