- From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:59:43 -0000
- To: 'Jason Cupp' <jcupp@esri.com>, "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Hi Jason, > > If you create a concept scheme with concepts and make it public, you > wouldn't want anyone to arbitrarly assert: > <http://myconcept> <skos:inScheme> <http://publishedScheme> . > > But theres no way in SKOS to describe a class (a skos:ConceptScheme), > completly specified with an enumeration of it's members > (skos:Concept). > > An enumerated class in OWL seems to be a better way to say that these > concepts belongs to this vocabulary. This would obsolete the > <skos:inScheme> > property and give a catalog the knowledge of scheme and > concepts clearly > defined in one place -- in the schema and not among the instances. > This is worth further discussion I think. What's to stop someone publishing an alternative enumeration? Won't you still need provenance data if someone tries to make spurious claims, whichever mechanism you use? Also, a concept scheme may not be simply an enumeration of a set of concepts - most people from the thesaurus community consider a concept scheme as consisting also of a set of semantic relationships between concepts. Am open to discussion and alternatives here, and as a general statement support the re-use features of existing vocabs such as OWL, wherever appropriate. Al. > - Jason >
Received on Monday, 15 November 2004 18:00:16 UTC