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

ISSUE-129: Last Call Comment

From: SWD Issue Tracker <dean+cgi@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 06:48:48 -0400 (EDT)
To: public-swd-wg@w3.org,public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Message-Id: <20080930104848.47E4A4DD62@crusher.w3.org>

ISSUE-129: Last Call Comment


Raised by: Alistair Miles
On product: SKOS

Raised by Lourens van der Meij in [1]:

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 ...


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.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0014.html
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2008 10:49:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:54 UTC