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

Using Local Identifiers for Global Reference

From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:58:16 -0000
Message-ID: <350DC7048372D31197F200902773DF4C05E50D65@exchange11.rl.ac.uk>
To: "'Houghton,Andrew'" <houghtoa@oclc.org>, public-esw-thes@w3.org

I thought I'd write a discussion of the options up on the wiki:

http://esw.w3.org/topic/SkosDev/GlobalReference

All comments most welcome.

Al.

---
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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Houghton,Andrew
> Sent: 19 November 2004 01:30
> 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 14:58:53 GMT

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