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

Re: SKOS comment [ISSUE-129]

From: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:56:27 +0100
Message-Id: <BE8D7C1B-C27B-4646-9DA2-84AAF24B59BE@manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: SWD Working SWD <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
To: Lourens van der Meij <lourens@cs.vu.nl>


Dear Lourens

Thank you for your comments [1,ISSUE-129]:
			
"""
A comment on
"S9 skos:ConceptScheme is disjoint with skos:Concept "

I have considered modelling complex thesauri containing sub thesauri
describing different aspects of objects (persons,subjects,..) as
a general concept scheme having sub thesauri as top concepts.
(often the pre-skos version is organized as a tree with top level
children nodes that are the aspects themselves).

ct:complex_thesaurus rdf:type skos:ConceptScheme
ct:complex_thesaurus skos:hasTopConcept ct:subjects
ct:complex_thesaurus skos:hasTopConcept ct:persons
ct:complex_thesaurus skos:hasTopConcept ...

then,

ct:subjects rdf:type skos:Concept,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

but I would also like
ct:subjects" rdf:type skos:ConceptScheme

I would put all ct:complex_thesaurus concepts skos:inScheme  
ct:complex_thesaurus

ct:subject1 rdf:type skos:Concept
ct:subject1 skos:broader ct:subjects
ct:subject1 skos:inScheme ct:subjects
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ct:subject1 skos:inScheme ct:complex_thesaurus

Then, ct:complex_thesaurus would be a proper conceptscheme with tree
but its subtree ct:subjects would also be a proper conceptscheme.

Why? Because I would dislike having to define two distinct URIs for
the subject that is a topconcept of ct:complex_thesaurus and
the subject that is a Conceptscheme that defines all subjects  
concepts that are
descendants of the ct:subjects concept. I would then need to define  
some ad hoc
property linking both subject uris.
"""

Requires discussion.

------------------------------------------------

As you discuss, in the SKOS data model, a concept scheme is viewed as  
an aggregation of a number of Concepts and we have chosen to make  
Concept and ConceptScheme disjoint. This does then require the  
introduction of additional URLs to identify the scheme and the  
concepts but we believe that maintaining a separation between the two  
notions aids clarity and promotes interoperability.

We propose to *close* this issue, making no change to the document. I  
hope that you are able to live with this.

Cheers,

	Sean Bechhofer
	Alistair Miles

[ISSUE-129] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/129
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0014.html



--
Sean Bechhofer
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester
sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk
http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer
Received on Friday, 17 October 2008 15:57:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 17 October 2008 15:57:45 GMT