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

Right. That makes sense, although my allergic reaction to rdfs:isDefinedBy
is not as pronounced as yours :) I could live with it. But I agree that (3)
is elegant and useful.

Steve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) [mailto:A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk] 
> Sent: 20 February 2004 12:00
> To: 'Steve Cayzer'; public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Subject: 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 Saturday, 21 February 2004 11:32:18 UTC