- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 13:51:05 +0200
- To: Stella Dextre Clarke <sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk>
- Cc: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Looking at your example below, I probably have not grasped the full
> subtleties of the RDF style. I do agree that the characteristics of
> division are really useful stuff - provided we are considering each one
> as an instance with respect to the particular array where it is being
> used. I am less convinced about the general applicability of any one of
> them across a scheme. And I am nervous about labelling them as
> "Concepts".
Right, in using skos:Concept for the 'characteristic of division' I've
committed something like the faux pas that drives carpenters nuts -
using a chisel as a screwdriver. It was handy and it fit in the
slot...
If it is considered desirable to make the 'characteristic of division'
more RDF-machine-processable, then perhaps a better approach might be
define a term x:Division or whatever, to use like this instead:
<skos:Collection rdf:about="COL1">
<skos:divisionCharacteristic>
<x:Division>
<rdfs:label>function</rdfs:label>
</x:Division>
</skos:divisionCharacteristic>
which maybe could be reduced to:
<skos:Collection rdf:about="COL1">
<skos:divisionCharacteristic rdf:parseType="Resource">
<rdfs:label>function</rdfs:label>
</skos:divisionCharacteristic>
(The literal approach before I started messing may be adequate, but I
thought I'd better just resharpen the chisel before putting it away
;-)
Cheers,
Danny.
Received on Sunday, 22 August 2004 11:51:09 UTC