W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > February 2005

[PORT] TR: Question on skos:subject domain

From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:44:56 +0100
To: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <GOEIKOOAMJONEFCANOKCCENBFJAA.bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>



-----Message d'origine-----
De : Bernard Vatant [mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com]
Envoyé : mercredi 23 février 2005 10:55
À : public-esw-thes@w3.org
Objet : RE: Question on skos:subject domain


I also agree on leaving the skos:subject domain open. Seems to me that SKOS should be
agnostic on the many possible ways concepts and concept schemes can be used for indexing,
and the types of objects (resources) that are likely to be indexed. Restricting the domain
of skos:subject to foaf:Document either entails extension of foaf:Document to things which
will not really fit in its original semantics, or restrict too much the use of
skos:subject.

IMO no general inference on the class of a:foo should be possible from a general assertion
like

a:foo		skos:subject  	b:someConcept

I rather imagine the use of owl:Restriction to define that such type of resource is using
such concept scheme, like e.g.

Definition of eg:TechnicalConcept as the subClass of skos:Concept for which skos:inScheme
value is eg:TechnicalTerminology

  <owl:Class rdf:about="http://www.eg.org#TechnicalConcept">
    <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#Concept"/>
    <owl:equivalentClass>
      <owl:Restriction>
        <owl:hasValue>
          <skos:ConceptScheme rdf:about="http://www.eg.org#TechnicalTerminology"/>
        </owl:hasValue>
        <owl:onProperty>
          <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#inScheme"/>
        </owl:onProperty>
      </owl:Restriction>
    </owl:equivalentClass>
  </owl:Class>

Definition of eg:TechnicalDocument as class of resources being indexed by some
eg:TechnicalConcept

  <owl:Class rdf:about="http://www.eg.org#TechnicalDocument">
    <rdfs:subClassOf>
      <owl:Restriction>
        <owl:someValuesFrom rdf:resource="http://www.eg.org#TechnicalConcept"/>
        <owl:onProperty>
          <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#subject"/>
        </owl:onProperty>
      </owl:Restriction>
    </rdfs:subClassOf>
  </owl:Class>

>From such declarations, I could e.g. entail that a given resource is a TechnicalDocument,
from the fact that it is indexed on a TechnicalConcept.

Does that make sense?

**********************************************************************************

Bernard Vatant
Senior Consultant
Knowledge Engineering
bernard.vatant@mondeca.com

"Making Sense of Content" :  http://www.mondeca.com
"Everything is a Subject" :  http://universimmedia.blogspot.com

**********************************************************************************

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]De la part de Ian Dickinson
> Envoyé : lundi 21 février 2005 14:49
> À : public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Objet : Re: Question on skos:subject domain
>
>
>
> Dave Reynolds wrote (in reply to Leonard Will):
> > Whilst foaf:Document is pretty generally I don't think it is supposed to
> > be quite that general. For example, it would presumably be surprising to
> > find something that is both a foaf:Person and a foaf:Document.
> And specifically, foaf:Person and foaf:Document are declared to be
> disjoint classes in the FOAF schema, so Leonard's definition is
> unsatisfiable using FOAF vocabulary.
>
> > It would make sense to me to leave the domain of skos:subject undefined
> > or to define a skos:Document which is as general as that defined in your
> > glossary.
> +1
>
> Ian
>
>
Received on Thursday, 24 February 2005 09:45:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:15 GMT