W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > October 2008

RE: ISSUE-130 draft response

From: Houghton,Andrew <houghtoa@oclc.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 11:43:26 -0400
Message-ID: <6548F17059905B48B2A6F28CE3692BAA015A1E2B@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

> From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 11:36 AM
> To: Houghton,Andrew
> Cc: public-swd-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-130 draft response
> 
> Hi Andy,
> 
> Your idea of using a specific TopConcept class makes sense at first
> sight, and I guess it was actually present in the SKOS vocabulary a
> while ago. But there could be problems with that when concept schemes
> re-use concepts from each other. In those cases a top concept for one
> scheme may well not be a top concept for another scheme. Being a top
> concept is really a contextual property, and not a part of the essence
> of a concept, I think.

Actually I wasn't suggesting a new class for TopConcept, but a mechanism for specifying that a skos:Concept is a top concept.  Something like:

<skos:Concept rdf:about="concept URI">
  <skos:isTopConcept rdf:resource="in-scheme URI" />
</skos:Concept>

skos:isTopConcept could be an inverse of skos:hasTopConcept in the skos:ConceptScheme.  This way you could specify a top concept where it makes the most sense.


Andy.
Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2008 15:44:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 October 2008 15:44:21 GMT