RE: [Proposal][SKOS-Core] handling top concepts - original use ca se

This issue originally came up through collaboration with the UK Archival
Thesaurus team.  UKAT is a thesaurus with several contained 'microthesauri'.
UKAT wanted to know how to model microthesauri, which are not covered by the
current SKOS Core guide.  I suggested they model each microthesaurus as a
concept scheme in its own right.  The UKAT concepts can then be declared as
members of both the overarching scheme and a microthesaurus as well.  Some
concepts are top concepts within a microthesaurus, but not in the
overarching scheme - this was the original use case.  That's when we
realised there could be a problem with skos:TopConcept whenever a concept is
a member of more than one scheme.  

I was thinking about putting a section on 'Microthesauri' in the 'Advanced
Features' section of the proposed 'Guide to Using SKOS Core for Thesauri'
note, explaining how to do it ... what do you reckon?   

(Btw I started sketching a table of contents for that note on the wiki at 
http://esw.w3.org/topic/SkosCoreGuideToc )

Al.
---
Alistair Miles
Research Associate
CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Building R1 Room 1.60
Fermi Avenue
Chilton
Didcot
Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
United Kingdom
Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@w3.org]
> Sent: 04 August 2004 17:55
> To: Miles, AJ (Alistair) 
> Cc: 'public-esw-thes@w3.org'
> Subject: Re: [Proposal][SKOS-Core] handling top concepts
> 
> 
> * Miles, AJ (Alistair)  <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk> [2004-08-04 17:27+0100]
> > > Thanks, this identifies a discomfort I've had w/ 
> interactions between 
> > > 'top concept' notion and thesaurus mixing. At heart you're saying 
> > > 'top concept' is a relation between a a 
> scheme/dataset/thesaurus and
> > > a concept. Makes sense to me.
> > > 
> > > So would this be:
> > > 
> > > <owl:FunctionalProperty 
> > > rdf:about="http:///....../skos/core#hasTopConcept"/>
> > > 
> > > ie. anything that has a skos:hasTopConcept has only one 
> such thing?
> > > 
> > 
> > Thanks Dan.
> > 
> > The original idea was that a scheme has several skos:hasTopConcept
> > properties, pointing to the top level concepts for that 
> scheme (i.e. so not
> > functional).
> > 
> > If we made skos:hasTopConcept functional, each scheme would 
> have to be
> > defined with a single root concept ... do you think it's 
> worth doing it that
> > way?
> 
> Ah, righto. I was reading too much into 'top'.
> 
> Yeah seems more useful to have several, otherwise they'll all just be 
> thing/entity/object/resource etc...
> 
> I'm not 100% clear on the use case for this construct, I guess.
> 
> Dan
>

Received on Wednesday, 4 August 2004 13:11:19 UTC