W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > January 2009

Re: [SKOS] Comments on SKOS Primer

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 10:54:15 +0100
Message-ID: <4965CD47.4080001@few.vu.nl>
To: Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>
CC: SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

>>> "Like" versus "such as" (really not a big deal, but "such as" is sometimes 
>>> more precise)
>> OK, except maybe
>>> 1133,1134c1134,1136
>>> < re-assert the RDF statements for the <code>ex1:cats</code> concept, e.g., its
>>> < <code>skos:prefLabel</code>. Assuming <code>ex1:cats</code> has been
>>> ---
>>>> re-assert things such as the <code>skos:prefLabel</code> of the
>>>> the <code>ex1:cats</code> concept.
>>>> Assuming <code>ex1:cats</code> has been
>> You would use "things" here, really? Wouldn't "Information" be more 
>> accurate, if you don't like "statements"?
> The sentence in question is:
>     Note that the information source defining the new concept
>     scheme does not re-assert the RDF statements for the
>     ex1:cats concept, e.g., its skos:prefLabel.
> I think it was the notion of "re-asserting" an RDF statement
> that had me briefly flummoxed. As in: is this about making
> NEW statements that happen to say the same thing or actually
> about somehow re-asserting THE SAME statements (and how does
> one do that - with some sort of import...)?

It was really about having the same statement (e.g. (ex:cats, skos:prefLabel, "cats"@en) ) in different places, resulting just from simple assertion.

> I agree about "things" versus "information", and I think
> "replicate" might clarify things, so perhaps:
>     ...does not replicate information about the
>     <code>ex1:cats</code> concept, such as its preferred label.


Received on Thursday, 8 January 2009 09:54:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:55 UTC