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

Re: Concept spaces and Namespaces RE: Glossary of terms ...

From: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:52:00 +0100
Message-ID: <41ED30A0.8000405@cs.vu.nl>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
CC: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, 'Thomas Baker' <thomas.baker@bi.fhg.de>, "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, public-esw-thes@w3.org


Salut from me too,

> I think that it is not a good idea for the SKOS specification to try and
> equate a namespace with a set of concepts described as a "scheme". If I want

If I understand namespaces correctly, they are only a way to provide 
unique names. If so, a particular namespace is not a "coherent" set of 
classes and properties. (Although this usually is the case, a namespace 
does not imply this.) The SKOS "concept scheme/space" does have this 
stronger meaning (if I interpret the spec correctly).

>>name *inside the concept space* before being ported to the RDF format. So an obvious
>>migration practice will certainly be to use a single RDF namespace to somehow represent
>>the concept space. I don't know if that should be recommended by the specification, or

Probably it is a good practice, but if the above argument holds, the 
concept scheme and inScheme property are still needed to provide the 
stronger meaning of a coherent set.

With regards,
Mark.

-- 
  Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
        mark@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2005 15:52:08 GMT

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