W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > October 2004

Re: [Proposal][SKOS-Core] skos:denotes

From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:34:55 +0100
Message-ID: <415D40DF.60502@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair) " <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:

> How about this for an argument as to why resources of type skos:Concept are
> at a different level of abstraction to, say for example, resources of type
> foaf:Person ... 

In my example the relationship was between the class foaf:Person and a 
skos:Concept of person, not between an instance of foaf:Person and the 

> You would not say that a 'scopeNote' or a 'definition' is a property of a
> person.

Correct. Similarly when describing an owl:Class or rdf:Property (or indeed 
an rdfs:Resource) I use rdfs:label, rdfs:comment and 
owl:AnnotationProperties etc to provide the equivalent of scopeNotes and 

> However, you might reasonably say that an 'email address' or 'date of birth'
> is a property of a person.

Correct but that does not stop a resource which is classified as being 
within the skos:Concept Person having an email address, it just means that 
the SKOS concept doesn't refer to it. That's just a matter of expressivity.

What's more if I choose to use a skos:Concept to directly model a 
particular individual (rather than the "its a resource classified using 
this concept" approach) there would be nothing to stop me also attaching 
properties like an email address or a date of birth to it. Those would not 
be skos properties but that is irrelevant. This is not object oriented 
programming here.

I think I should shut up about this now, I don't think I'm helping.

Received on Friday, 1 October 2004 11:35:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:45:16 UTC