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

Re: notes at contepts vs notes at terms

From: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 14:36:54 +0200
Message-ID: <43563DE6.9080702@cs.vu.nl>
To: "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
CC: Stella Dextre Clarke <sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk>, public-esw-thes@w3.org

Hi Alistair,

> I think we could fit this into the model, but I'd like to make sure we do it only where appropriate and absolutely necessary.  Hence I'd like for us to review a good set of requirements before making any design decisions.  So if you could describe the  scenarios you have encountered where notes are usefully associated with non-preferred terms, that would be very helpful.

 From one point of view ("maintenance", "future extensions" or 
whatever you might call it) the class approach has the advantage that 
you can always attach properties to terms, e.g. properties that might 
turn out to be really useful somewhere in the future (i.e. stuff we 
cannot anticipate now).

Another reason is that Terms get a URI so that they can be referred 
to. In the WordNet TF, this is a motivation to assign URIs to 
WordSenses, instead of using blank nodes. You can then use WordSenses 
e.g. to annotate texts. Similar uses might be envisioned for SKOS terms.


  Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
        mark@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2005 12:37:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 13:32:06 UTC