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

RE: SKOS dodges the identity crisis? or not ...

From: Jason Cupp <jcupp@esri.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 23:25:20 -0800
Message-ID: <491DC5F3D279CD4EB4B157DDD62237F4055FBEF6@zipwire.esri.com>
To: public-esw-thes@w3.org

By splitting the identifiers up between scheme and resource, I think you'd
loose the ability to do OWL IFPs. Sounds like that's getting into the topic
map reference model, where you can declare a scheme for locators...?

You could create a subProperty of dc:identifier and make it an OWL IFP, but
that would be your declaration, just reguluar dc:identifier shouldn't be an
IFP, it's too generic -- like an abstract base property. - Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: Houghton,Andrew [mailto:houghtoa@oclc.org]
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 5:30 PM
To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Subject: RE: SKOS dodges the identity crisis? or not ...



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Miles, 
> AJ (Alistair)
> Sent: 18 November, 2004 13:57
> To: 'www-rdf-interest@w3.org'; 'public-esw-thes@w3.org'
> Subject: RE: SKOS dodges the identity crisis? or not ...
> 
> 
> Having just read this again, I'm going to shoot myself down 
> and say that this interpretation is probably a bad idea.
> 
> But probably still worth talking about why it's no good.
> 

Recently, while talking about rdf:nodeID, Miles pointed out
that one could do:

> <rdf:RDF>
>   <rdf:Description
> rdf:about="http://www.basc.org.uk/content/accessshooting">
>     <skos:subject>
>       <skos:Concept>
>         <skos:subjectIndicator
> rdf:resource="http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/schemasstandards/gcl.a
> sp?term=446"/>
>       </skos:Concept>
>     </skos:subject>
>   </rdf:Description>
> </rdf:RDF>
> 
> The blank skos:Concept node in the above RDF description will be 
> merged with the blank node from the GCL RDF description with the 
> same value for a subjectIndicator property (by an OWL reasoner 
> or a simple rule reasoner with a rule to support 
> owl:InverseFunctionalProperty).

Which got me thinking about the identity crisis.  Some KOS do have
concept identifiers, but not URI's.  The publisher may not wish to
develop "official" URI's.  This becomes problematic for the Semantic
Web.  I'm not going to debate why they wouldn't want to develop URI's,
but it occurred to me that if dc:identifier was an
owl:InverseFunctionalProperty then it would be possible to do something
similar to above:

<rdf:RDF>
  <rdf:Description rdf:about='http://example.org/thing'>
    <skos:subject>
      <skos:Concept>
        <dc:identifier>concept-id</dc:identifier>
      </skos:Concept>
    </skos:subject>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

One issue I glossed over is that the identifier would need to be tied 
to some known identifier "scheme".  Maybe the base skos:ConceptScheme,
like:

<rdf:RDF>
  <rdf:Description rdf:about='http://example.org/thing'>
    <skos:subject>
      <skos:Concept>
        <skos:inScheme>
          <dc:identifier>lcsh</dc:identifier>
        </skos:inScheme>
        <dc:identifier>sh2003004821</dc:identifier>
      </skos:Concept>
    </skos:subject>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

Any thoughts?


Andy.
Received on Friday, 19 November 2004 07:25:59 GMT

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