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

Re: subject indicators ... ?

From: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@ontopia.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:59:13 +0200
To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <m3acupi94e.fsf@ontopia.net>


* Bernard Vatant
| 
| That said, if you really think that it makes sense to integrate the
| original topic map concept in SKOS, why not use the same name from
| the property that in the XTM namespace, that is exactly
| "subjectIndicatorRef", and declare it to be an (exact?) match of
| this property, that is :
| 
| skos:subjectIndicatorRef  skos-map:exactMatch  xtm:subjectIndicatorRef
| 
| where xtm stands for the XTM namespace http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/

I think this makes sense, but I can see two issues with it, which may
or may not constitute a problem:

  1) xtm:subjectIndicatorRef is not an RDF property, but an XML
     element type. I'm not sure it's good practice to treat XML
     element types are RDF properties, but maybe it is.

  2) subjectIndicatorRef is a somewhat strange name for an RDF
     property, since the property does not really constitute a
     reference. Instead, it's saying that the object is the subject
     indicator of the subject (subject of the RDF triple, that is).
 
One solution to this may be to define skos:subjectIndicator and then
just say in prose that it is semantically equivalent to the XTM (and
ISO 13250:200X, where X > 4) concept of a subject indicator.

| Maybe it's too strong a commitment.

I don't think it is. Not if you define the semantics to be the same.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
Received on Thursday, 14 October 2004 16:35:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 13:32:04 UTC