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

RE: subject indicators ... ?

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:29:11 -0400 (EDT)
To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair) " <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: 'Bernard Vatant' <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.55.0409211221240.16559@homer.w3.org>

The idea is something like a "definedBy" property, except that it means
"definedBy" in a human-readable sense, right?

I agree with Bernard that there is a problem in making it an IFP, which is a
bit like the one that can arise if foaf:homepage is an IFP.  If two people
work for the same organisation, and co-own it, that doesn't normally mean
they are the same person. Likewise if Bernard uses a particular piece of my
writing as an explanation of "a bad idea" and I use it as an explanation of
"a good idea", we risk running into problems, because we would be obliged to
consider the concepts as the same.

foaf:mbox works more often because it generally matches the real world where
one person has one email address. But that isn't always true - there are
plenty of people with no email address, and for many years I have had shared
email addresses - which for people I shared with were often their only one.

Concepts are harder to pin down, I think. So I would stick to the less
precise world of having definitions and examples - a definition might be an
IFP. Or might not...



On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Miles, AJ (Alistair)  wrote:

>Hi Bernard,
>Thanks alot for your comments, I hoped you would say something on this.
>> What do you imagine would be the range of
>> skos:SubjectIndicator in that case? Would you leave it open? Or what?
>I was imagining to restrict the range of a proposed property
>'skos:subjectIndicator' (or just 'skos:indicator' might be better?) to
>resources.  So the usage would be e.g. ...
>	<skos:prefLabel>bananas</skos:prefLabel>
>	<skos:indicator rdf:resource="http://somewhere.org/somedoc.html"/>
>> having
>> skos:subjectIndicator 	rdf:type
>> owl:InverseFunctionalProperty
>> would imply considering the object of skos:subjectIndicator
>> as an Individual
>> I'm not sure it's such a good idea.
>I may well be missing something here, by why might it be a bad idea?
>For comparison, FOAF [1] has an inverse-functional property 'foaf:homepage',
>which allows you to uniquely identify e.g. a person, organisation, or
>company etc. (i.e. the owner of that homepage).
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2004 16:29:12 UTC

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