On fre, 2008-01-25 at 13:51 +0100, Jakob Voss wrote: > > Ontologies are not about feeling. If the term "subject" has a special > connotation then how about calling the relation "smirgel" or "kstfxy"? > Because that's what an RDF relation looks like to a Computer. There is > no inherent semantic in a relation but its usage - the usage of > skos:subject is to connect skos:Concept and any other resource. That's > all. There is no "aboutness" in RDF (unless you define it). Well, not all information is declared in RDF schema or OWL - a lot of the information is conveyed in human language definitions and usage guides - and those in turn will influence how people implement and use the SKOS vocabulary. In effect, I think both skos:subject and dcterms:subject convey an "aboutness" in the URI *and* in the associated guidelines, that is inappropriate for the general case of a relationship between a resource and a Concept. Getting the *connotations* right is as important as getting the *definitions* right, if we are to succeed in enhancing interoperability and not create unnecessary confusion. That said, it seems we mostly agree :-) /Mikael -- <mikael@nilsson.name> Plus ça change, plus c'est la même choseReceived on Friday, 25 January 2008 13:31:27 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 25 January 2008 13:31:29 GMT