Good technical remarks from Lars Marius. > 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. Agreed. In fact I was thinking about xtm:subjectIndicatorRef as a property of a xtm:topic, but this is only so far in my personal RDF interpretation of the TM data model and syntax. But might be at some point, in some standard TM-RDF mapping, this will be true ... this is another story. > 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). Right! ... "subject" is indeed a bit overloaded and confusing in this context :)) > 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. Logical conclusion. +1 Bernard Bernard Vatant Senior Consultant Knowledge Engineering Mondeca - www.mondeca.com bernard.vatant@mondeca.comReceived on Thursday, 14 October 2004 18:05:17 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:52 GMT