RE: Blank nodes for concepts.

I think Al's point is that we need *some* way to uniquely identify concepts
other than by URI (ie by description) [Al - correct me if I'm wrong!]

One way is to insist on only one prefLabel per thesaurus.
It sounds like you think this is an unreasonable constraint (which might be
true). So if that's the case, what property/ies should we use? Is there a
concept equivalent of foaf:mbox ?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:charles@w3.org] 
> Sent: 06 February 2004 09:14
> To: Cayzer, Steve
> Cc: 'Miles, AJ (Alistair) '; 'public-esw-thes@w3.org'
> Subject: 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)
> >> >
>

Received on Friday, 6 February 2004 14:28:56 UTC