- From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 21:55:04 -0000
- To: "Leonard Will" <L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Hi Leonard, > Rather than providing a property that allowed or encouraged people to > blur these distinctions, would it be better to provide two or more > distinct relationships between concepts and resources, to force > cataloguers to choose the correct one? Yes absolutely. The intended semantics of the skos:subject property restrict it to the "about" relationship only ... let's think about whether some other relationships might be usefully added to SKOS Core. But we can have our cake and eat it. What we can do in RDF is have 'relationship hierarchies'. So we could have a set of more specific properties, each a sub-property of a more general property. Why bother to have a more general (fuzzy) property if we want to encourage better semantics as you rightly suggest we shuold? With this fuzzier property we could dump existing (ambiguous) categorisation data (which has some usefulness) into RDF with an automated transform. (To disambiguate existing ambiguous categorisations takes lots of human effort.) I'm just concerned that, without a more ambiguous property in addition to skos:subject, people will use the skos:subject property in a very general way, and hence the intended semantics of skos:subject (and hence the usefulness of the property) will be undermined. Cheers, Al. > > Leonard > -- > Willpower Information (Partners: Dr Leonard D Will, > Sheena E Will) > Information Management Consultants Tel: +44 > (0)20 8372 0092 > 27 Calshot Way, Enfield, Middlesex EN2 7BQ, UK. Fax: +44 > (0)870 051 7276 > L.Will@Willpowerinfo.co.uk > Sheena.Will@Willpowerinfo.co.uk > ---------------- <URL:http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/> > ----------------- > >
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2005 21:56:59 UTC