Re: SKOS-Core 1.0 issues: representing thesaurus membership for a con cept

I'm missing something. Can you explain why (1) is ambiguous and misleading?

Cheers

Steve
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Miles, AJ (Alistair) " <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 5:01 PM
Subject: SKOS-Core 1.0 issues: representing thesaurus membership for a con
cept


>
> Hi,
>
> This is an outstanding issue, which needs to be resolved before an
SKOS-Core
> 1.0 release.
>
> It is clear that it is necessary to have some way of stating that a
concept
> is a member of a particular thesaurus (conceptual scheme).  By what
> mechanism do we do this?
>
> Options:
>
> 1.  Use rdfs:isDefinedBy
>
> 2.  Create a new (more specific than rdfs:isDefinedBy) property e.g.
> skos:inScheme
>
> 3.  For each scheme (thesaurus) define a subclass of the skos:Concept
class
>
> Argument:
>
> (1) is not specific to this need, and overloading it could cause confusion
> and ambiguity.
> (2) is potentially easiest to understand.
> (3) is more consistent with the qualified DC in RDF approach to
representing
> subject schemes [1].
>
> I'm tempted to go with (2) for now and add a property to SKOS-Core
> <skos:inScheme> for the 1.0 release.
>
> Any thoughts on choosing this option, or the name of the property itself?
> (I didn't suggest something like <skos:inThesaurus> because I'm trying to
> keep SKOS slightly more generic than just thesauri.)
>
> Al.
>
> [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcq-rdf-xml/
>