- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:34:55 +0100
- 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 skos:Concept. > 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 definitions. > 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. Cheers, Dave
Received on Friday, 1 October 2004 11:35:06 UTC