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

inScheme v. OWL set semantics

From: Jason Cupp <jcupp@esri.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:36:03 -0800
Message-ID: <491DC5F3D279CD4EB4B157DDD62237F4055FBED5@zipwire.esri.com>
To: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

If you create a concept scheme with concepts and make it public, you
wouldn't want anyone to arbitrarly assert:
<http://myconcept> <skos:inScheme> <http://publishedScheme> .

But theres no way in SKOS to describe a class (a skos:ConceptScheme),
completly specified with an enumeration of it's members (skos:Concept). 

An enumerated class in OWL seems to be a better way to say that these
concepts belongs to this vocabulary. This would obsolete the <skos:inScheme>
property and give a catalog the knowledge of scheme and concepts clearly
defined in one place -- in the schema and not among the instances.

- Jason
Received on Monday, 15 November 2004 17:36:39 GMT

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