W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Should we adopt SKOS?

From: Barry Norton <barry.norton@ontotext.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 23:38:54 +0000
Message-ID: <50EDFF8E.7000505@ontotext.com>
To: Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov>
CC: "'Young,Jeff \(OR\)'" <jyoung@oclc.org>, 'Dan Brickley' <danbri@danbri.org>, 'Jason Douglas' <jasondouglas@google.com>, 'W3C Web Schemas Task Force' <public-vocabs@w3.org>, "'Wallis,Richard'" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>, 'Jamie Taylor' <jamietaylor@google.com>, 'Guha' <guha@google.com>, 'Thad Guidry' <thadguidry@gmail.com>

... ah, apologies - on closer inspection it's not a top class at all, 
and there are indeed 'authoritative labels' with respect to an authority.

I was mislead by the discussion.

Barry



On 09/01/2013 23:34, Barry Norton wrote:
>
> Isn't that an AuthoritativeThing, or an AuthorisedThing, rather than 
> an Authority?
>
> Barry
>
>
> On 09/01/2013 23:24, Ray Denenberg wrote:
>>
>> Not that strange.
>>
>> MADS uses Authority because that's what it is, an Authority. It's 
>> narrower than a Concept. It is used to refer to things are 
>> "authoritative":  authoritative form for a personal name, 
>> authoritative form for a  place, etc.
>>
>> --Ray
>>
>> *From:*Young,Jeff (OR) [mailto:jyoung@oclc.org]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 09, 2013 5:20 PM
>> *To:* Dan Brickley; Jason Douglas
>> *Cc:* W3C Web Schemas Task Force; Wallis,Richard; Jamie Taylor; Guha; 
>> Thad Guidry
>> *Subject:* RE: Should we adopt SKOS?
>>
>> In the MADS ontology, they used the term “Authority” in place of 
>> “Concept”.
>>
>> http://www.loc.gov/standards/mads/rdf/v1.html#Authority
>>
>> Strange but true.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2013 23:39:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 January 2013 23:39:18 GMT