- From: Houghton,Andrew <houghtoa@oclc.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 18:33:49 -0400
- To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
> From: Leonard Will [mailto:L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 6:17 PM > Subject: Quasi node labels > > I think that calling it "summary" would confuse the issue, > because these terms _do_ in fact represent concepts, and in > the AAT for example they can occur at any level. I'd prefer > to see them treated as a sub-class of concept, having the > restriction that they are not to be used for indexing. I agree, I thru out "summary" because I couldn't come up with a better name and hoped someone else could. I guess I should have noted that in my message. I have been debating whether these should be a subclass of concept or not. Regardless of whether it is or is not, it still would be defined at the same level as skos:concept. So if I had: skos:NodeLabelB or skos:Concept +-- skos:NodeLabelB the RDF serialization would still look like: <skos:NodeLabelB/> <skos:Concept/> So it's just a matter of semantics whether you consider it a subclass or not. From a serialization point of view they are exactly at the same level. One needs to decide whether this truly is a subclass of concept. I think it might be, but I keep going back an forth on that point. I'll leave the semantics, to others, but I do think that SKOS does need to make the distinction between (a) and (b) as you pointed out. > > >and the current proposal for handling (a). Although the current > >proposal seems odd to me. > > Sorry, but I'm not clear exactly what you mean by "the > current proposal" I was referring to the original proposal that Miles posted for comments. I guess I switched topics without being clear on the matter. Sorry for the confusion. Andy. Andrew Houghton, OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. http://www.oclc.org/about/ http://www.oclc.org/research/staff/houghton.htm
Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2004 18:33:53 UTC