- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:09:46 -0500
- To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair) " <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Cc: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
* Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk> [2004-02-25 13:59-0000] > > Forwarded to the list (message from Aida Slavic): > > (Aside: we need to figure out how to do facets properly - I've got a strong > feeling that the way we do it in SKOS-Core currently isn't quite right, 'tho > I don't know how to fix it yet). Doing facets seems to me to be getting into the territory already covered by RDFS/OWL. Is there any way this could be couched as a bunch of test cases, with facets defined as RDF properties annotated in OWL, versus in a more traditional library-style thesaurus? And then mappings specified, in prose or RDF...? I guess I'm wary that the ontology community might look at what we're doing here and and say "Hey, why are you re-inventing OWL?", especially as we move from representing networks of named concepts to representing the properties and classes that characterise the things those concepts stand for... Any thoughts on where/how to draw the line? Dan
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2004 09:09:52 UTC