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

The thing is I'm not totally clear on exactly how rdfs:isDefinedBy should be
used.  

The following excerpt comes from [1] :

--------------------
rdfs:isDefinedBy is an instance of rdf:Property that is used to indicate a
resource 
defining the subject resource. This property may be used to indicate an RDF
vocabulary in
which a resource is described.
--------------------

What I want is a property that says 'concept X is a member of concept-scheme
Y'.

So I'm not sure if rdfs:isDefinedBy is appropriate?

P.s. I slept on it and now I'm tending towards option (3) - create a
subclass of skos:Concept for each concept scheme (mainly because of
consistency with DCQ).

Al.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-schema-20040210/#ch_isdefinedby

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Cayzer [mailto:steve.cayzer@hp.com] 
Sent: 19 February 2004 20:49
To: Miles, AJ (Alistair) ; public-esw-thes@w3.org
Subject: 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/
>

Received on Friday, 20 February 2004 07:00:39 UTC