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

Re: Question on skos:subject domain

From: Thomas Baker <thomas.baker@bi.fhg.de>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:13:56 +0100
To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050224181356.GA1796@Octavius>

I think there's something to be said for making the basic term
declarations as unconstrained as possible.  Assertions about
things like domain need not be made at that level and can always
be overlaid in other ways.

As for links between vocabularies, that is something which
ideally would be done in the form of mutual recognition (e.g.,
between DC and SKOS), and the methods for doing such things
still need to be worked out.

Tom

On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 06:01:06PM -0000, Alistair Miles wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> The reason I originally proposed to have foaf:Document as the domain of skos:subject was more to help make it obvious exactly how the predicate should be used.  I've also wanted that SKOS has as many appropriate links as possible to existing well established semantic web vocabs (i.e. FOAF DC OWL RDF RDFS ...)  
> 
> But I'm happy for the domain of skos:subject to be unconstrained.  Anyone else want to weigh in on this before we make a change?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Al.
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I agree that it's better to leave the skos:subject domain 
> > open. But then 
> > skos:subject only defines a range, skos:Concept. In that 
> > case, what is 
> > the use of skos:subject when compared to dc:subject? Maybe the rule 
> > attached to it in [1]?
> > 
> > [(?d skos:subject ?x)(?x skos:broader ?y) implies (?d 
> > skos:subject ?y)]
> > 
> > If not, a recommendation in the Guide to use dc:subject for indexing 
> > purposes would be enough.
> > 
> > Mark.
> > -------
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/spec/#subject
> > 
> > 
> > Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > This makes good sense to me.
> > > 
> > > Chaals
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:55:29 +0100, Bernard Vatant  
> > > <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I also agree on leaving the skos:subject domain open. Seems to me 
> > >> that  SKOS should be
> > >> agnostic on the many possible ways concepts and concept 
> > schemes can 
> > >> be  used for indexing,
> > > 
> > > 
> > >> IMO no general inference on the class of a:foo should be 
> > possible from 
> > >> a  general assertion
> > > 
> > > 
> > >> I rather imagine the use of owl:Restriction to define that 
> > such type 
> > >> of  resource is using
> > >> such concept scheme, like e.g.
> > >>
> > >> Definition of eg:TechnicalConcept as the subClass of 
> > skos:Concept for  
> > >> which skos:inScheme
> > >> value is eg:TechnicalTerminology
> > > 
> > > 
> > >> Definition of eg:TechnicalDocument as class of resources being 
> > >> indexed  by some
> > >> eg:TechnicalConcept
> > >>
> > >>> From such declarations, I could e.g. entail that a given 
> > resource is 
> > >>> a  TechnicalDocument,
> > >>
> > >> from the fact that it is indexed on a TechnicalConcept.
> > >>
> > >> Does that make sense?
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > -- 
> >   Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
> >         mark@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 

-- 
Dr. Thomas Baker                        Thomas.Baker@izb.fraunhofer.de
Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven         mobile +49-160-9664-2129
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft                          work +49-30-8109-9027
53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany                    fax +49-2241-144-2352
Personal email: thbaker79@alumni.amherst.edu
Received on Thursday, 24 February 2005 18:11:12 GMT

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