RE: Quasi node labels

> 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