- From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:42:56 -0000
- To: 'Steve Pepper' <pepper@ontopia.net>
- Cc: SWBPD list <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Hi Steve, > > I haven't had time to study the SKOS spec yet, but I > know that you have a property for subjectIndicator in > there. > > I just want to give you a heads-up that my current > thinking is that having a special property may not be > the optimal way of adding subject indicators (and hence > Published Subjects) to RDF. I am tending toward the idea > that a *class* defining the concept of "information > resource" (as a subclass of "resource") may be a better > way to go. Am most interested to hear your ideas on this. Without knowing any more detail about your current thinking than what you said above: the idea of defining the class of 'information resources' sounds like a good idea ... but that doesn't address the issue of how to identify non-inforesources. Do you think it is OK to allocate URIs directly to non-inforesources? Or do you think we should always identify non-inforesources indirectly (e.g. as described in [1])? Yours, Al. [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/#indirect-identification > > This is of course one of the issues that needs to be > addressed in RDFTM but I thought I'd let you know now > in case your deadlines for SKOS require us to try and > get that discussion going immediately. > > Best regards, > > Steve > > -- > Steve Pepper <pepper@ontopia.net> > Chief Strategy Officer, Ontopia > Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 > Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps 1.0) > >
Received on Monday, 15 November 2004 17:43:29 UTC