- From: David Menendez <zednenem@psualum.com>
- Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 00:42:11 -0500
- To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
My apologies if this has been discussed to death already; I just recently learned of SKOS. After reading the draft specs and some of the recent discussion on this list, I'm still not sure what things count as a skos:Concept, particularly as it pertains to the use of foaf:topic and dc:subject. Lets say I have a scheme with these elements: _:A a skos:Concept ; skos:prefLabel "Politicians" . _:B a skos:Concept ; skos:prefLabel "U.S. Presidents" ; skos:broaderGeneric _:A . _:C a skos:Concept ; skos:prefLabel "George Washington" ; skos:broaderInstantive _:B . Now, _:A and _:B I can handle, but I'm not sure about _:C. Is that the sort of thing one would include in a thesaurus? (I'm guessing it is, by analogy with the "Red Lion pub" example in sec. 3.9.2, but I could be wrong. Let's also say I have a description of George Washington, like so: _:D a foaf:Person ; foaf:name "George Washington" . Do _:C and _:D denote the same resource? If not, what is the relationship between them? If they are the same, then what is the difference between skos:Concept and rdf:Resource? This seems to be connected to the issue of foaf:topic vs. dc:subject. Consider these statements: _:E dc:subject _:C. _:F foaf:topic _:D. _:G foaf:topic _:C. _:H dc:subject _:D. If we interpret _:C as a subject code which stands for George Washington, rather than George Washington himself, then we could interpret this as asserting that _:E and _:F are about George Washington and _:G is about the subject code for George Washington (the statement about _:H is inconsistent with the sense of dc:subject). If _:C denotes George Washington, then _:F and _:G are about George Washington and the assertions about _:E and _:H are inconsistent with dc:subject. If dc:subject and foaf:topic can be used interchangably, then we'd have to interpret it as saying _:E, _:F, _:G, and _:H are all about George Washington. Anyway, this is where I start feeling like I must be missing something. Am I totally on the wrong track here? (PS. I'm not currently on the list, so please include me in replies. Thanks.) -- David Menendez <zednenem@psualum.com> <http://www.eyrie.org/~zednenem/>
Received on Thursday, 1 April 2004 00:42:36 UTC