- From: Cayzer, Steve <Steve.Cayzer@hp.com>
- Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 16:31:53 -0000
- To: "'Miles, AJ (Alistair) '" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, "Cayzer, Steve" <Steve.Cayzer@hp.com>, "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Right. That makes sense, although my allergic reaction to rdfs:isDefinedBy is not as pronounced as yours :) I could live with it. But I agree that (3) is elegant and useful. Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) [mailto:A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk] > Sent: 20 February 2004 12:00 > To: 'Steve Cayzer'; public-esw-thes@w3.org > Subject: RE: SKOS-Core 1.0 issues: representing thesaurus > membership for a con cept > > > The thing is I'm not totally clear on exactly how > rdfs:isDefinedBy should be used. > > The following excerpt comes from [1] : > > -------------------- > rdfs:isDefinedBy is an instance of rdf:Property that is used > to indicate a resource > defining the subject resource. This property may be used to > indicate an RDF vocabulary in which a resource is described. > -------------------- > > What I want is a property that says 'concept X is a member of > concept-scheme Y'. > > So I'm not sure if rdfs:isDefinedBy is appropriate? > > P.s. I slept on it and now I'm tending towards option (3) - > create a subclass of skos:Concept for each concept scheme > (mainly because of consistency with DCQ). > > Al. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-schema-20040210/#ch_isdefinedby > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Cayzer [mailto:steve.cayzer@hp.com] > Sent: 19 February 2004 20:49 > To: Miles, AJ (Alistair) ; public-esw-thes@w3.org > Subject: Re: SKOS-Core 1.0 issues: representing thesaurus > membership for a con cept > > > I'm missing something. Can you explain why (1) is ambiguous > and misleading? > > Cheers > > Steve > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Miles, AJ (Alistair) " <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk> > To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org> > Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 5:01 PM > Subject: SKOS-Core 1.0 issues: representing thesaurus > membership for a con cept > > > > > > Hi, > > > > This is an outstanding issue, which needs to be resolved before an > SKOS-Core > > 1.0 release. > > > > It is clear that it is necessary to have some way of stating that a > concept > > is a member of a particular thesaurus (conceptual scheme). By what > > mechanism do we do this? > > > > Options: > > > > 1. Use rdfs:isDefinedBy > > > > 2. Create a new (more specific than rdfs:isDefinedBy) property e.g. > > skos:inScheme > > > > 3. For each scheme (thesaurus) define a subclass of the > skos:Concept > class > > > > Argument: > > > > (1) is not specific to this need, and overloading it could cause > > confusion and ambiguity. > > (2) is potentially easiest to understand. > > (3) is more consistent with the qualified DC in RDF approach to > representing > > subject schemes [1]. > > > > I'm tempted to go with (2) for now and add a property to SKOS-Core > > <skos:inScheme> for the 1.0 release. > > > > Any thoughts on choosing this option, or the name of the property > > itself? (I didn't suggest something like <skos:inThesaurus> because > > I'm trying to keep SKOS slightly more generic than just thesauri.) > > > > Al. > > > > [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcq-rdf-xml/ > > >
Received on Saturday, 21 February 2004 11:32:18 UTC