W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-powderwg@w3.org > June 2007

Re: [SKOS] ACTION on relating skos:Concept to a foaf:Person

From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetilk@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 09:38:20 +0200
To: aisaac@few.vu.nl
Cc: public-swd-wg@w3.org, Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200706220938.21682.kjetilk@opera.com>

On Friday 22 June 2007 08:17, aisaac@few.vu.nl wrote:
> Thanks, your mail clarifies a lot. In fact your two problems
> (concept-concept linking and concept-object linking) are linked
> because it is so in your interface...
>
> Unfortunately I guess one could spend weeks finding this "means"
> common superproperty of the "semantically equivalent concept" (the
> tag-concept link) and "reference" (the tag-object link) properties
> you need for your app, if it exists.
>
> In the meantime, I would propose as a cheap solution that the UI
> deals with the problem it has raised.

Actually, the UI allready has support for that. The problem isn't that 
it can't deal with it, the problem is that the users can't deal with 
it... :-) Since I did anticipate the problem when creating the UI, I 
created support for it, but our users feel it is too complex, so I will 
have to remove that feature and deal with it elsewhere... 

> Your app could just detect the rdf:type of this resource; if it is a
> skos:Concept, then you create a 'semantically equivalent concept'
> triple between the tag and the concept. If it is something else, then 
> we can assume it belongs to the 'real world' realm and the app would
> create a 'reference' triple between the tag and the object.

Indeed, I have thought about that too, and I was thinking more about on 
the way home yesterday, and in fact, I think it prompts a elaborated 
POWDER use case and a requirement, we need a clear rdf:type for the 
description. So, I'll write up that. 

> I agree that this proposal is not optimal: you could argue that if
> there is an interface need, there is some evidence of a modelling
> need. But given the complexity of the problem and my limited
> knowledge, I cannot offer you something else in one week. 

Heh, actually, the time has shrunk to four hours now... We're freezing 
at 15:00 today, so what has not been done by then I would just need to 
document next week and hope for someone to pick it up.

> Of course I 
> am very curious to know if someone on the list has a better option at
> the modelling level.

I would too! :-)

Cheers,

Kjetil
-- 
Kjetil Kjernsmo
Information Systems Developer
Opera Software ASA
Received on Friday, 22 June 2007 07:38:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:11 GMT