RE: Blank nodes for concepts.

I was intending that the <rdfs:isDefinedBy> property of a concept points to
the URI of the thesaurus it is in.  Is this appropriate usage of
<rdfs:isDefinedBy> ?

Al.

> 
> 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)
> >> >
>

Received on Friday, 6 February 2004 10:22:28 UTC