- From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:35:00 -0000
- To: "Benjamin Nowack" <bnowack@appmosphere.com>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Hi Ben, all, Thinking about this, I quite like Benjamin's approach 2 below. One reason is that it allows the public/private classification to be orthogonal to the note function. Also for the other advantages he lists. I would be interested to see if others also prefer this alternative. Cheers, Al. > > ####### alternative approach 2: ######## > - n+2 terms > - n classes > - 1 owl:DatatypeProperty > - 1 owl:ObjectProperty > - a single object property is used to link a concept > to a note, notes can be typed. > - use case examples: > [[[ > <skos:Concept rdf:about="#foo"> > <skos:note> > <skos:Example> > <skos:noteValue>bar</skos:noteValue> > </skos:Example> > </skos:note> > </skos:Concept> > ]]] > [[[ > <skos:Concept rdf:about="#foo"> > <skos:note> > <skos:Example> > <skos:noteValue>bar</skos:noteValue> > </skos:Example> > </skos:note> > </skos:Concept> > ]]] > [[[ > <skos:Concept rdf:about="#foo"> > <skos:note> > <skos:Example rdf:about="bar.html" /> > </skos:note> > </skos:Concept> > ]]] > - advantages > - unambiguous use of documentation properties > - more or less the same serialization for any > use case > - OWL DL-happy (?) > - untyped notes are possible > - notes can get multiple types (e.g. a public > editorialNote, types from other vocabs) > - facilitated querying (?) > - disadvantages > - serializations are a little bit more complex > - no plain literal notes (which doesn't really > facilitate the generation of simple editing > forms) > > hope this is helpful at all, still looks like a job > for the vocab management task force.. > > > regards, > benjamin > > -- > Benjamin Nowack > > Kruppstr. 100 > 45145 Essen, Germany > http://www.bnode.org/ > > >
Received on Monday, 28 February 2005 21:35:32 UTC