RE: Blank nodes for concepts.

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004, Cayzer, Steve wrote:

>
>That's my reading of (b)
>
>b.  A combination of the concept's prefLabel and the URI of the thesaurus to
>which it belongs.
>

to expand on my example

 <Concept>
   <prefLabel>Bar</prefLabel>
   <altLabel>Baz</altLabel>
   <rdf:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://example.com/concepts?easyToFind"/>
 </Concept>
 <Concept>
   <prefLabel>Bar</prefLabel>
   <altLabel>Foo</altLabel>
   <rdf:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://example.com/concepts?worksForPWD"/>
 </Concept>

seems reasonable, or am I missing something?

Hmm. I am assuming you point to the term definition, not just the thesaurus
it is in. But  I think even if I pointed to the latter (i.e. the thesaurus
defines a concept with two prefLabels) there would be nothing to stop the
thesaurus from defining two concepts with the same prefLabel and different
alternative labels. And I don't see there is anything wrong with deciding to
name a concept definition:

 <Concept rdf:about="#foo">
   <prefLabel>Bar</prefLabel>
   <altLabel>Foo</altLabel>
   <rdf:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://example.com/concepts?worksForPWD"/>
 </Concept>

it just gives you a way to refer to this definition. ?

cheers

chaals

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:charles@w3.org]
>> Sent: 06 February 2004 01:05
>>
>> doesn't give you any right to infer that the two balnk nodes
>> are the same (this would be that case if you made prefLabel
>> map 1:1 with concepts but I think that's a bad idea anyway).
>>
>> Looking at user scenarios, there is an obvious cost to two
>> concepts having the same preferred label - whenever you want
>> to classify something by that label you need to be clear
>> which one you mean. On the benefit side, you might well have
>> a term that commonly refers to a couple of different
>> concepts, and want to be easily able to look for things with
>> the preferred Label.
>>
>> "accessible" is the example that springs to mind in my
>> everyday stuff. I suspect in putting vocbularies together
>> it's also useful.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Chaals
>>
>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, Steve Cayzer wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Makes sense to me.
>> >
>> >Might be worth adding an explanation to one of the docos, both
>> >technical (as
>> >below) and non technical (implication - you can't add a new
>> concept with the
>> >same prefLabel as another concept in the same thesaurus)
>> >