RE : Change proposal

Hi Mark,

> Actually what could happen with the term-as-class solution is the
> creation of several instances of Terms referring actually to the same

>I am not sure I understand. Are you saying that it is a problem that a
> separate URI would be assigned to the same term in the terms-as-class
> solution, while this would not happen in the current solution because
> they are just labels?

Yes

> Then this is just a problem that either (a) there is an 'error' in the
> thesaurus anyway because the term is repeated 

Could be that the term duplication comes from various occurrences of non-preferred terms, for example

>(b) the conversion just is
> a little bit harder because we'd have to detect if the term already
> exists, or is really different.

Yes, this solves. I just wanted to mention it somehow.

> I don't see this as a reason not to go for the term-as-classes solution,
> as any existing RDF Schema can be used wrongly.

Me neither. That was more an argument for the following

> Yep, very right. But there are some other 'errors' or constraints that
> the SKOS schema itself does not prevent/enforce, e.g. 'No two concepts
> in the same concept scheme may have the same value for skos:prefLabel in
> a given language.' We could include just one more constraint or
> 'warning' rule.

> Lastly, like I said earlier, I think it is more important to flag the
> issue in the Change Proposal/Issue list than to try to solve it now.
> (Although I enjoy discussing it very much!)

Fully agreed. But if the change proposal starts collecting tradeoffs for the future, then I wanted to have these evoked before forgetting them, even if they are not discussed.

Cheers,

Antoine