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

RE: subject indicators ... ?

From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:15:51 +0100
Message-ID: <350DC7048372D31197F200902773DF4C05E50C25@exchange11.rl.ac.uk>
To: 'Charles McCathieNevile' <charles@w3.org>
Cc: 'Bernard Vatant' <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, public-esw-thes@w3.org

But isn't the whole point of the pubsub approach that you define 'subjects'
by reference to the web resources that uniquely describe them?  

I.e. you publish a web resource for each of your 'subjects' that defines
only that subject (the 'subject indicator'), and because a subject indicator
defines only a single subject, then you can use the URL of the subject
indicator as an identifier for the subject?

(Have I got that right?)

How is that different from talking about 'the subject as uniquely defined by
the subject indicator with URL X' ... which you would surely represent in
RDF using an IFP?

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 Charles
> McCathieNevile
> Sent: 21 September 2004 17:29
> To: Miles, AJ (Alistair) 
> Cc: 'Bernard Vatant'; public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Subject: RE: subject indicators ... ?
> 
> 
> 
> 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...
> 
> cheers
> 
> Chaals
> 
> 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:Concept>
> >	<skos:prefLabel>bananas</skos:prefLabel>
> >	<skos:indicator 
> rdf:resource="http://somewhere.org/somedoc.html"/>
> ></skos:Concept>
> >
> >> 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 17:16:26 GMT

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