RE: Indirection

Re indirection, how does this look:

http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/guide/2005-01-25.html#secmodellingrdf

???

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: Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@w3.org]
> Sent: 07 February 2005 12:38
> To: Miles, AJ (Alistair)
> Subject: Re: Indirection
> 
> 
> * Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk> [2005-02-07 12:31-0000]
> > Hi Dan,
> > 
> > OK now I'm totally back on your side :)  This makes it very 
> clear I think.
> 
> :) phew, thought i was going nuts ;)
> 
> This is the same discussion we had in France (last year? I forget!)...
>  
> > > 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 :)
> 
> I think some words outline the difference between the SKOS style
> and the raw/pure RDF style are needed, to avoid 'confusing the
> marketplace' as they say. There's plenty more we can do in later 
> working drafts, so yeah just some holding text for now. Maybe some 
> of my previous mail could be usable, now I've persuaded you? 
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Dan
> 
>

Received on Monday, 7 February 2005 15:54:24 UTC