W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > February 2005

FW: Indirection

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 12:35:40 -0000
Message-ID: <F5839D944C66C049BDB45F4C1E3DF89D18DB7C@exchange31.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>


Hi Dan,

OK now I'm totally back on your side :)  This makes it very clear I think.

> I think we disagree slightly, but I accept that 
> you're right about what Thesaurus authors think their 
> data structures mean. 
> 
> The problem is probably easiest when we think about nodes in a 
> thesaurus graph that 'stand for' individuals. I could have a node
> in SKOS thes I make that stands for you. Libby Miller might 
> make a quite distinct SKOS thesaurus some years later, and
> also include a concept for you. There are then two things there,
> both concepts, but there's only one you. SKOS keeps the nodes
> separate, as I understand it, so that the node that really 
> stands for you (ie. has an rdf:type of Person) carries 
> properties such as age, favouriteSong, workplaceHomepage; while
> the two SKOS concept nodes have properties that are properties
> of conceptualisations of you (eg. dated 2004 or 2007, pointers
> to the scheme they come from, etc.).
> 
> This is a re-hash of our discussion around the 'denotes', or 
> 'stands for' or whatever property, I think...
> 

> Maybe it can be postponed until after the first WD? 

I'd like to try and draft a short section for the guide as it is, just to point this up as an interesting discussion area (with maybe a few links to emails in the archive).  Then we can attack it again later :)

Cheers,

Al.
Received on Monday, 7 February 2005 12:36:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:53 GMT