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

Re: comment: collections are concepts or not?

From: Sue Ellen Wright <sellenwright@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:02:54 -0400
Message-ID: <e35499310510101402j213c411cr8f059f4d211488d5@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
I agree that concept and collection should be disjoint. In concept theory, a
collection can be a descendent of a concept, and each item in the collection
(which terminologists tend to think of as a set) is itself a concept, but
the collection is just a way of containerizing these items that share a
particular kind of relation to the initial concept.
Sue Ellen

 On 10/10/05, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
>
>
> I see...
>
> "There is consensus that a 'node label' does not represent a label for a
> concept in its own right"
>
> --
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-guide-20050510/#seccollections
>
>
> and just below it I see a diagram wherein
>
> ex:milk skos:narrower [ rdf:type skos:Collection ].
>
> and we have skos:narrower rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:semanticRelation,
> so that
>
> ex:milk skos:semanticRelation [ rdf:type skos:Collection ].
>
> and
> and skos:semanticRelation rdfs:range skos:Concept
> so that
>
> ex:milk skos:semanticRelation
> [ rdf:type skos:Collection, skos:Concept ].
>
> so the collection is a concept after all.
>
> Please fix this inconsistency between the example and the prose one
> way or another.
>
> I suggest keeping Collections and Concepts disjoint, and introducing
> a narrowerCollection property.
>
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
>
>
>


--
Sue Ellen Wright
Institute for Applied Linguistics
Kent State University
Kent OH 44242 USA
sellenwright@gmail.com
swright@kent.edu
sewright@neo.rr.com
Received on Monday, 10 October 2005 21:03:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:54 GMT