W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > October 2008

ISSUE-182: Last Call Comment: Index Terms

From: SWD Issue Tracker <dean+cgi@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 10:06:35 +0000 (GMT)
To: public-swd-wg@w3.org,public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Message-Id: <20081008100635.8BEDE6B62C@tibor.w3.org>

ISSUE-182: Last Call Comment: Index Terms


Raised by: Sean Bechhofer
On product: SKOS

Raised by Michael Panzer [1]:

2. Index terms

An important part of many classification systems is an index, in the
case of the DDC its "Relative Index". Index terms associated with a
given class generally reflect several of the topics falling within the
scope of that class. There is no easy way of modeling this relationship
in SKOS:

616 Diseases

Index terms:
   Clinical medicine
   Internal medicine
   Physical illness--medicine

Currently, a possible workaround is to construct the complete Relative
Index as a separate skos:ConceptScheme and relate the concepts in these
two independent schemes by using mapping relations:

skosclass:hasIndexTerm rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:closeMatch .

skosclass:isIndexTermOf rdfs:subPropertyOf skos:closeMatch ;
  owl:inverseOf skosclass:hasIndexTerm .

<class/616> a skos:Concept ;
  skosclass:hasIndexTerm <index/Clinical%20medicine> ;
  skos:inScheme <classification> .

<index/Clinical%20medicine> a skos:Concept ;
  skosclass:isIndexTermOf <class/616> ;
  skos:inScheme <index> .

This seems to be a satisfactory best-practice solution in this case, but
it has broader implications as index terms are just one instance of 
Class-Topic Relations

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0061.html
Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2008 10:07:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:29 UTC