W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > November 2004

RE: [PORT] Subject Indicators

From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:42:56 -0000
Message-ID: <350DC7048372D31197F200902773DF4C05E50D3E@exchange11.rl.ac.uk>
To: 'Steve Pepper' <pepper@ontopia.net>
Cc: SWBPD list <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

Hi Steve,

> I haven't had time to study the SKOS spec yet, but I
> know that you have a property for subjectIndicator in
> there.
> I just want to give you a heads-up that my current
> thinking is that having a special property may not be
> the optimal way of adding subject indicators (and hence
> Published Subjects) to RDF. I am tending toward the idea
> that a *class* defining the concept of "information
> resource" (as a subclass of "resource") may be a better
> way to go.

Am most interested to hear your ideas on this.

Without knowing any more detail about your current thinking than what you
said above: the idea of defining the class of 'information resources' sounds
like a good idea ... but that doesn't address the issue of how to identify
non-inforesources.  Do you think it is OK to allocate URIs directly to
non-inforesources?  Or do you think we should always identify
non-inforesources indirectly (e.g. as described in [1])?  



[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/#indirect-identification

> This is of course one of the issues that needs to be
> addressed in RDFTM but I thought I'd let you know now
> in case your deadlines for SKOS require us to try and
> get that discussion going immediately.
> Best regards,
> Steve
> --
> Steve Pepper <pepper@ontopia.net>
> Chief Strategy Officer, Ontopia
> Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3
> Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps 1.0)
Received on Monday, 15 November 2004 17:43:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:40 UTC