RE: subject indicators ... ?

Lars wrote:
>   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.
> 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.

+1

I think it would be fine to just use prose to describe the equivalence
between the SKOS and XTM notions of 'subject indicator' ... a
'skos:exactMatch' or 'owl:equivalentProperty' statement seems unnecessary at
this time.

> 
>   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).
>  

This is a good point I think ... leading me to support the original name
'subjectIndicator' for the this SKOS property.

Al.







> 
> | 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 >