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

RE: working around the identity crisis

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:36:31 +0200
Message-ID: <1E4A0AC134884349A21955574A90A7A50ADD9D@trebe051.ntc.nokia.com>
To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Cc: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>




-----Original Message-----
From:	Stickler Patrick (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere)
Sent:	Tue 2004-11-16 12:34
To:	'ext Miles, AJ (Alistair)'; www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Cc:	'public-esw-thes@w3.org'
Subject:	RE: working around the identity crisis


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Miles, AJ (Alistair) [mailto:A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk]
> Sent: 15 November, 2004 17:24
> To: Stickler Patrick (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere); www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Cc: 'public-esw-thes@w3.org'
> Subject: RE: working around the identity crisis
> 

> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/
> 

OK. I had a closer look at SKOS, and it looks very
interesting -- a more general approach to what is
more specifically addressed by VOC. In fact, I can
see how VOC is a specialization of SKOS, as follows:

<?xml version="1.0"?>

<!DOCTYPE rdf:RDF [
   <!ENTITY rdf    "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns">
   <!ENTITY rdfs   "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema">
   <!ENTITY owl    "http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl">
   <!ENTITY dc     "http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1">
   <!ENTITY skos   "http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core">
   <!ENTITY voc    "http://sw.nokia.com/VOC-1">
]>

<rdf:RDF
   xmlns:rdf  ="&rdf;#"
   xmlns:rdfs ="&rdfs;#"
   xmlns:owl  ="&owl;#"
   xmlns:dc   ="&dc;/"
   xmlns:skos ="&skos;#"
   xmlns:voc  ="&voc;/"
>

<rdfs:Class rdf:about="&voc;/Vocabulary">
   <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&skos;#ConceptScheme"/>
   <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&skos;#Concept"/>
</rdfs:Class>

<rdfs:Class rdf:about="&voc;/Term">
   <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&skos;#Concept"/>
</rdfs:Class>

<rdf:Property rdf:about="&voc;/vocabulary">
   <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="&skos;#member"/>
</rdf:Property>

<rdf:Property rdf:about="&voc;/term">
   <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="&skos;#member"/>
</rdf:Property>

<rdf:Property rdf:about="&voc;/specializationOf">
   <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="&skos;#broader"/>
</rdf:Property>

<rdf:Property rdf:about="&voc;/generalizationOf">
   <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="&skos;#narrower"/>
</rdf:Property>

</rdf:RDF>

SKOS has a number of document-centric terms which I'm
not sure need to be constrained to documents, but rather,
could perhaps be left agnostic, and then one can classify
resources as 'documents' explicitly.

Of couse, I'm understanding the purpose of subject indicators
as topical classifications, and thus, I can imagine lots
of resources which might relate to particular subjects/topics
which are not documents.

Though, I may also simply be missing some central point or
not fully see the motivations/use cases for such constraints.

Cheers,

Patrick
Received on Tuesday, 16 November 2004 11:37:37 GMT

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