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

Re: [Proposal][SKOS-Core] skos:denotes

From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:56:36 +0100
Message-ID: <415ADB34.2030502@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: "Miles, AJ (Alistair) " <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

Dan Brickley wrote:

> SKOS is one layer of abstraction further removed from reality than 
> basic RDF,

I guess I've seen it as another modeling style in parallel to 
Class/Instance modeling rather than a layer more abstract.

> If several parties use SKOS and they have a concept in their
> SKOS-expressed thesauri that stand for the person Alistair Miles, while
> other parties simply write RDF statements about Alistair directly, we'd
> imho benefit if we had some conventions for figuring out that they were 
> talking about the same thing. But they're not "the same thing" in the
> conventional RDF/OWL sense, since the class Person and the class
> skos:Concept are presumably disjoint. 

Ah I hadn't realize they were expected to be disjoint. I nearly wrote 
earlier that it you could simply have the bNode Al-as-foaf-Person also be 
an instance of skos:Concept. Then it could, for example, be directly 
attached to a thesaurus without this extra level of indirection and use 
owl:sameAs to indicate these correspondences.

> Maybe skos:represents would work better as a name?

Yes, possibly.

Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2004 15:56:43 UTC

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