W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > November 2004

concept descriptions

From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:16:56 -0000
Message-ID: <350DC7048372D31197F200902773DF4C05E50D15@exchange11.rl.ac.uk>
To: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Cc: "Dan Brickley (E-mail)" <danbri@w3.org>

Hi all,

Just sharing an idea I have had, regarding what a node of type skos:Concept
actually represents, which may help to clarify some problems with modelling
and mapping.

Here is the idea: that we consider a node of type skos:Concept to represent
a *description* of a concept, and not the concept (or entity) itself.

This makes it very clear why owl:sameAs should never be used to relate  two
nodes of type skos:Concept coming from different schemes, even if they are
descriptions of the same underlying concept.

It also makes explicit a level of indirection which Danbri has always
assumed, and which is the basis for his argument re the skos:denotes debate
(see e.g. [1]).  Furthermore, it actually makes valid the choice of the term
'denotes' to label this relationship.  Because it makes sense to say that a
*concept description* 'denotes' a *thing*.  

Thoughts on this?

Al.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2004Sep/0067.html

---
Alistair Miles
Research Associate
CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Building R1 Room 1.60
Fermi Avenue
Chilton
Didcot
Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
United Kingdom
Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2004 15:17:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:52 GMT