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

Re: concept descriptions

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:32:08 -0500
To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20041110153208.GL1348@homer.w3.org>

* Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk> [2004-11-10 15:16-0000]
> 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.

Can we say that it represents a _conceptualisation_ rather than the
thing that is conceptualised? I worry a little about saying it is a
description, though I see where you're going...

> 
> 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 15:32:08 GMT

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