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

SKOS comment

From: Lourens van der Meij <lourens@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 10:27:59 +0200
Message-ID: <48C0ED8F.7060306@cs.vu.nl>
To: public-swd-wg@w3.org

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. 



Thanks,

Lourens van der Meij

(allowing skos:Collection and skos:Concept to not be disjunct could also possibly make
 skos:Collection more useful)
Received on Friday, 5 September 2008 08:29:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 5 September 2008 08:29:05 GMT